Carbon pollution is not the only kind of pollution. If it weren't for global warming, it wouldn't really even be important. The article mentions "filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels" so it's pretty clear it's not CO2 they're worried about.

It's not the only kind of pollution, no, but the title is both incorrect and clickbait in that it just says "pollution".

16 ships do NOT create as much pollution as all of the cars on the planet, period. They create as much of a specific type of pollution as all of the cars on the planet.

What an odd argument, at complete right angles to what I was talking about.

"Traumatic brain injuries are not the only kind of injuries. If it weren't for the fact that they result in death, they wouldn't really even be important."

If you feel I was minimizing the importance of sulfur pollution in comparison to carbon pollution, that is because I was. Carbon pollution is, in fact, more important.

Behold, data: http://i.imgur.com/t75zXYw.png

That picture only talks about effects on global warming. I'm talking about public health. As aylons's links show, hundreds of thousands of people die every year from particulates and gases other than CO2.

Don't those particulates and gases typically have a more local effect, thus being largely irrelevant when emitted out in the middle of the ocean?

Alcohol poisoning isn't the only kind of poisoning. If it weren't for widespread ethanol consumption and acute cascading organ failure, it wouldn't really even be important.

Right, so if someone complains of being poisoned, you wouldn't be surprised if they meant something other than alcohol poisoning. But commenters here seem surprised that "pollution" refers to anything other than CO2.

It's not surprise that "pollution" refers to anything other than CO2, it's surprise that "pollution" refers to one specific pollutant and no others.

What if I told you that Côte d'Ivoire produced more food than any other country in the world? What if you then discovered that by "food" I meant cocoa beans, and they're not even remotely close to being at the top when considering all food?

The way you phrased your original comment (before the edit adding context), it was a vacuous statement. That is why I posted.

Technically speaking, carbon dioxide, which is what I assume you refer to by carbon pollution, is not a pollutant. It is a non-toxic inert greenhouse gas, used by a very large quantity of organisms as an exchange gas.