The article is not about woodsmoke.

The article is about how people react when you attack something. The article uses woodsmoke as an example, presenting many scientific reasons why woodsmoke is bad, and allowing some of the audience to experience the feelings that people have when something they like is attacked.

The comments in this thread show that it's a poorly written article and that most people didn't get that point. (Or were not interested in addressing that point.)

But the verity of the argument WRT woodsmoke speaks to the strength of the analogy.

Many here appear to agree that burning of woodsmoke is not always bad [appeal to majority!] and that the article appears# to go far beyond what there is evidence for in claiming wood burning is wrong, period. [of course that doesn't mean it isn't wrong]

Following the analogy to a conclusion on this basis says that those who appeal to scientific arguments for atheism are using poor data and over-reaching often attacking practices which don't match well with real life.

If the woodsmoke argument is poor but the analogy is sound then the conclusion is that those who light wood-fires like those who are religious are justified in rejecting this sort of "scientific position".

He's done for the anti-woodsmoke position what proving the pope is fallible does for atheism.

- - -

# I only read the snippets of the conclusions of the papers in the comments and not the actual papers.

The article claims to be about something other than woodsmoke, but as others have pointed out, it does a pretty poor job of being about that other thing and as a result is basically about woodsmoke.