Well, you may have seen it, but obviously it wasn't clear enough to be understood. Let me try again. There are really two parts to this, plus one other that Andrew brought up which is also important, three in all.

1) The larger the number one begins with, the smaller a given change will appear when measured in terms of the change in the rate of change. For example:

Nation A emits (let us say) 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases in year 1, and 102,000 in year 2. This is an increase of 2,000 metric tons.

Nation B emits (let us say) 50,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases in year 1, and 51,500 in year 2. This is an increase of 1,500 metric tons.

Which nation has increased more, measured in absolute amounts? Nation A, by 500 metric tons. But which nation has increased more, measured as a percentage? Nation B, because its emissions grew 3%, while Nation A's grew 2%.

That is what I mean by the concept being inherently misleading. Nation A's emissions actually grew more, but looking at the percentage rate of change rather than the amount of change makes it seem as if they grew less. And that, I am sure, is what is happening w/r/t U.S. emissions. The Bush administration, I am equally sure, chose to measure things by this rather unusual method precisely for that reason.

2) It is pointless and foolish for another reason to measure slowdown in the rate of increase in greenhouse gases and pat ourselves on the back. We do not need to slow down the increase in gases. We need to reverse it, and actually reduce emissions. We were putting out too much before, and now we're putting out even more too much. We are going in the wrong direction, and it is not comforting that we have slowed down (if in fact we have), when what we need to do is to go into reverse.

3) (This is what Andrew pointed out.) We must also ask how much of the change, however meaningless, is actually caused by moving U.S. manufacturing to other countries. Since those other countries usually have more lax environmental laws than we do (that's one reason why the facilities were moved, although not I think the most important reason), the factories after moving may well be putting out more greenhouse gases, and are almost certainly worse in terms of other pollutants, than if they had remained here -- yet the fact that they are NOT here falsely and misleadingly contributes to making our numbers look better.

But I don't have an incredulous view of the numbers. I have an incredulous view of the reasoning behind them. I accept the numbers, but they do not mean what the Bush administration wants us to think they mean.