Rick Monteverde wrote:
The assertion made by
> Fink -- that high
> CO2 levels do not affect human respiration therefore the
> global warming hypothesis must be wrong -- is not supported
> by data or theory. . . .
[Fink] may be incorrect, but it is not nonsense. It is supported by some
data and some theory.
Okay, what data and theory? Where is it published? What are you
talking about? I have never heard of anything like that, and Fink did
not supply the names of papers or references.
The assertion made by [Rothwell] -- that [Fink's claim
is wrong and therefore the global warming hypothesis must be right] -- is
not supported by data or theory. It is a straw man logical fallacy; he is
refuting an argument that no one makes.
My assertion was not a straw man. Fink clearly made the argument that
there is no danger from global warming as long as CO2 levels do not
affect human respiration. (To put it another way, he claimed that the
basis of the global warming hypothesis is rooted in measurements or
assertions about CO2 affecting human respiration.) That is
unprecedented and without any scientific basis as far as I know. If
you know of some foundation for this, Rick, please enlighten us. Or
if you claim that is not Fink's argument, then what was it?
- Jed
