nor did i ever state that double co2 would do it. i suggested simply turning up the co2 to higher and higher concentrations, you know, just until you stopped breathing!
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Jeff Fink <rev...@ptd.net> wrote: > A clarification: > > I was responding to Leaking pen, when he challenged me to survive in a room > full of CO2 as proof that CO2 is not pollutant. To that I responded that > even at twice ambient atmospheric levels of CO2, I would not even notice. > In a subsequent post I backed up my response with some data. > > I did not say, nor intend to speculate what effects double CO2 levels would > have on climate. But, since Jed interpreted my response to Leaking Pen as a > comment on CO2 levels verses global warming, I will go on record with the > following statement: > > I suspect that doubling atmospheric CO2 levels would have some measurable > effect on climate. > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:21 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:first day in carbon capture > > 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 > > > >
