The argument implied as valid by your reply to the person who called it invalid was given several parents up. The chain was that comment, a person calling the argument boring, another person calling it valid, another person calling it invalid, a reassertion of invalidity, a negation of the claim of validity, and then your post re-asserting the arguments validity.

It was not a valid argument structure. The definition of valid is that an argument is valid if the argument structure is such that if the premises were true, the conclusion must be true. The stated conclusion of the post many parents is up is that the amount of emissions is higher. If you agree with me that this argument was not actually made, than you ought to agree with me that what was done must not be a valid argument: that conclusion is not reachable via the questions posed in the post, therefore, it is not a valid argument.

I'm a fan of syllogistic logic, so I shared your care for the definition of the word valid. Also, totally understandable to lose the context. This discussion is nested quite deeply. If I hadn't thought about the comment chain for an hour before giving my reply, I would have lost the context too.