crab,
The US pollutes more in direct emissions because the US uses more energy to run its high lifestyle, the lifestyle that Asia and Africa are working hard to assume.
The indirect emissions are perhaps even more damning, because the release of CO2 from chopped down trees is almost as much a problem as are the direct emissions, and the loss of carbon fixing from those trees makes the "pollution" from rural, third world countries perhaps as bad as the big bad US. Furthermore, the release of methane from thawing tundra (a mode unrealized when the models were constructed) appears to be accelerating the problem.
All that being said, I must attack your illogical point "if you believe..." because this is not a religious festival, and your or my belief has nothing to do with the data. The Oil Pressure Caution Light is flickering on the Earth's Caution panel, and we have 928 technical papers by climate scientists who say it is, (and not one opposed) but Crab who says it is about models, and Lama who says it is the Scientist Mafia. I hear fiddling........
You can put your head in the sand and believe that these are nothing but discussions, and that "models" are what we are discussing. You can also find someone who is more to blame than you, so that means you must do nothing! You can also take a vote of the "beliefs" of those who you hang around with, and if the majority think it is no problem, than the data must be adjusted to suit. Let's vote on Gravity, too, while we are at it. The results will be as meaningful.
One of the great problems with aerospace safety is to get the user to see the net safety implications of his actions. Build stronger engines while we hit the dirt with CFIT is an example. This is the same. The data is there, but the ability of we collective fools to decide it isn't data, and that there is a nice word-pattern that makes it go away fuels our dreams.