On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:37:52 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>:

>On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
>>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You misunderstand.
>>
>>
>> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
>> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>>
>Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
>need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
>a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
>is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
>derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
>Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
>So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
>involving any aspect of the above.
>
Asked and answered (ignoring the misidentification of one of
the players); that's exactly how I read it. Let's see if
there's an acknowledgement...
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Asked and answered

So dog poo does *Not* taste like candy, you're saying.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:

> On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:
> > On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> >> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
> >>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> >>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
> >>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
> >>>>> laugh;
> >>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You misunderstand.
> >>
> >>
> >> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
> >> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
> >>
> >> --
> >> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
> >>
> >
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
> > need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
> > a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
> > is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
> > derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
> > Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
> > So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
> > involving any aspect of the above.
> >
>
> Yikes I completely substituted Athel Cornish-Bowden for John Kerr-Mudd
> in there, as if that explanation wasn't confusing enough already. I
> apologize; Athel Cornish-Bowden has nothing to do with that part of the
> conversation.
>

Good job I Read Ahead; I was going to have to correct you there.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Arkalen wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others

You're such a loser at this point that you can't even dare
say things to the Great & All Powerful JTEM anymore, you
have to say them to your other sock puppets.

HINT: What is it JTEM said, specifically, that you're
pretending to disagree with?

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> No, it doesn't; you've ommited my objection to your claim that I was a
> "JTEM fan"

Search for "JTEM" in this group. Note the thousands upon Thousands
upon THOUSANDS of words the collective has gushed on your obsession
with JTEM.

OF! COURSE! You're a JTEM fan!

Nothing wrong with that. I'm so charming, after all.

You SHOULD BE a JTEM fan!

I make you all giddy, no doubt. From the exciting of my being
here.

And, again, that's okay.

Perfectly normal.

--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5

RonO wrote:
> On 4/7/2024 5:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  Some
>>> people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible
>>> because methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.
>>
>>
>> They are right to worry.  The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per
>> square meter as compared to pre-industrial times.  Crudely speaking,
>> this accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.
>>
>> Why is it so?  Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is not
>> that short, being about 11 years.  As it is far more effective at
>> absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.
>>
>> When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water
>> vapour, which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself.  And this effect
>> lasts.
>>
>> The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a
>> century, is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4
>> will be long gone at the end of that period.
>>
>> It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in
>> the atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial
>> times, but CH4 is up 160%.
>>
>> Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us.  As the world
>> warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered organic
>> carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2.  Arctic soils, in particular, hold
>> vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more  than tropical soils.
>> Field experiments have shown that the rate at which arctic areas are
>> giving off greenhouse gases is increasing. This positive feedback
>> could grow very nasty indeed.
>>
>>   We likely did
>>> accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
>>> dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had already
>>> been increasing for thousands of years.
>>
>> Time scales matter.
>>
>> The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about 20k
>> years ago, most of that in the first 10k.  We have now warmed the
>> earth one degree C in less than two centuries.  And eight billion of
>> us depend on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to that earlier
>> climate.
>>
>> It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
>> stable ecosystems.  Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant (and
>> less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub.   And that's just the
>> beginning.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> We need to better define what the crisis is.
>>>
>>> We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period.
>>> For the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age
>>> cycles. The earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but
>>> for the last million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand
>>> years of cold interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer
>>> climate.  The temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more
>>> extreme in the last 500,000 years.  The last warm period got warmer
>>> than it is now, and more ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters
>>> higher than they are now.
>>
>>
>> Eemian warmth was different.  At this time the orbital eccentricity
>> was more than double the current value.  With perihelion occurring in
>> summer,  this led to strong increases in summer temperatures,
>> decreases in winter.  The obliquity was also larger, meaning more heat
>> in higher latitudes.
>>
>> The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
>> winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also
>> be difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and
>> polar records.   Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not
>> directly comparable to our little experiment which will be year-round
>> warmth, with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.
>>
>> And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
>> people.
>>
>>
>>    We
>>> have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not yet
>>> as bad as they got without human industrial interference.
>>>
>>> There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed
>>> that the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession into
>>> another ice age.
>>
>>
>> As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
>> interpretation.
>>
>>
>>
>>    We might delay the next ice age.  This really doesn't seem to
>>> be that bad.
>>
>>
>> Nor would it be good.  Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms.  If
>> we still are an industrial society when the next one comes along -
>> some time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to deal
>> with it.
>>
>> Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to Julius
>> Caesar worrying about world war II.
>>
>>
>>   We got a taste of what things would be like when
>>> temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's and
>>> didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is
>>> supposed to be responsible for our current global warming.
>>
>>
>> The little ice age ended well before CO2 from industry became a
>> significant factor in climate.  It has been shown that stratospheric
>> aerosols caused by increased volcanism account for about 60% of the
>> little ice age cooling.  Given the noisy data, that's about as good as
>> can expect, though solar, GHG and land-use effects were also accounted
>> for.
>>
>>
>>
>>    The earth has seen
>>> warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to
>>> the levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously
>>> happened before.  So the regions that will be flooded will just be a
>>> repeat of what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.
>>
>> You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels.  See above.
>>
>>
>> William Hyde
>>
>
> It looks like you didn't comment relevantly on that topic, just denied
> it with no discussion.

Really? You started with the claim that methane is not an important
greenhouse gas, and I went into some detail to show that it in fact is.

Then you went on to speculate that global warming might save us from an
oncoming ice age, and I reminded you that while an ice age is coming
soon in geological time, it is very far away in human time, while damage
from global warming is not.

I did not mention ocean acidification, another consequence of our
atmospheric pollution. I gather from biologists that this is also
rather important.

The paper that was put up on TO did predict that
> we might skip the next ice age.

Actually this is not a new idea. I first saw reference to in in an
Asimov essay in the 1960s, discussing Milankovitch theory. It also
appears in a book I've recommended here many times, "Ice Ages - solving
the Mystery", by Imbrie and Imbrie, published some time in the mid 70s.

Indeed,there was an SF novel circa 1990 which had a new ice age caused
by people following those crazy environmentalists. Another SF writer,
George Turner, had the same idea, but played it more subtly (the novel
titles are "Fallen Angels" and "The Sea and the Summer" - also titled
"The Drowning Towers".)

  I recall the paper was published a
> couple years before the Top Six were put out so that would be around
> 2015.

Our paper was:

"Transient nature of late Pleistocene climate variability", Thomas J.
Crowley & William T. Hyde

Nature volume 456, pages 226–230 (2008)

It was mentioned in this group a few years later.

The next ice age wasn't the real point of the paper, which talked about
a larger and more significant change which might occur in the next
50,000 years.

  I haven't heard much about it since.  You may have written
> something similar, but didn't come to the same conclusion.

Of course we did. And we knew it would be abused by the denialist
community, as it immediately was.

I've been involved in three papers which had as their point that some of
the worst case scenarios for GW might not happen, and in each case some
in the denialist community claimed that we had "proven" that climate
change was not a problem at all. Those who deal with creationists will
not be surprised.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 13:45:41 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>> On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
>>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people laugh;
>>>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You misunderstand.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
>>> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>>>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
>> need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
>> a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
>> is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
>> derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
>> Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
>> So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
>> involving any aspect of the above.
>>
>With Nyikos no longer around to engage, jillery may become something akin
>to an immune system that starts engaging in more friendly fire than before.
>

Not just Nyikos but Glenn too has left the stage so something of a
double whammy.

JTEM seems to have become a substitute for Glenn and Ron Dean to some
extent for Nyikos but I don't think either of them really measure up
to the original.

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <me@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On 2024-04-24 06:01:24 +0000, jillery said:
> >
> >[ ∑ ]
> >
> >>
> >> Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
> >> troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
> >> following as well:
> >>
> >> *****************************
> >> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:18:25 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hint for bluffing your way into physics:
> >>> Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
> >>> both in printed papers and in ASCII,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >> *******************************
> >
> >What on earth is wrong with that?`
> >
> Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
> (which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
with a certain regularity.
She seems to acquire a new area of competence
with every youtube movie she has seen.

What outsiders don't realise is that sciences like physics or biology
are also languages that you have to learn to use correctly.

Athel for example will also be distrustful of someone claiming knowledge
of biochemistry when he consistently fails to capitalise
the letters in the vatamins C, D12, etc.

Biologists will distrust the biological knowledge
of people who fail to capitalise Linean species names correctly.
And so on.
Those in the know do it in certain well established ways,
those who do it differently are not in the know, probably.

Jan

--
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do"
(if you want to have a chance of being mistaken for one)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:02:40 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <me@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On 2024-04-24 06:01:24 +0000, jillery said:
>> >
>> >[ ? ]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
>> >> troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
>> >> following as well:
>> >>
>> >> *****************************
>> >> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:18:25 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >> Lodder) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hint for bluffing your way into physics:
>> >>> Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
>> >>> both in printed papers and in ASCII,
>> >>>
>> >>> Jan
>> >> *******************************
>> >
>> >What on earth is wrong with that?`
>> >
>> Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
>> (which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.
>
>Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
>with a certain regularity.
>She seems to acquire a new area of competence
>with every youtube movie she has seen.
>
OK. I hadn't really noticed any egregious
Dunning-Kruger-like posts from her, but I wasn't looking
closely.
>
>What outsiders don't realise is that sciences like physics or biology
>are also languages that you have to learn to use correctly.
>
True. In fact, as has been commented regarding England and
the US as "separated by a common language", words sometimes
have a vastly different meaning in the vernacular from their
meaning in science; "theory " is a perfect example.
>
>Athel for example will also be distrustful of someone claiming knowledge
>of biochemistry when he consistently fails to capitalise
>the letters in the vatamins C, D12, etc.
>
>Biologists will distrust the biological knowledge
>of people who fail to capitalise Linean species names correctly.
>And so on.
>Those in the know do it in certain well established ways,
>those who do it differently are not in the know, probably.
>
I can't refute any of that; in fact I fully agree. And it
doesn't apply only to science; every specialized field has
its "specialty" terms, which may sound like common usage,
but have a specific, and frequently different, meaning.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 2024-04-25 11:02:40 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <me@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>> On 2024-04-24 06:01:24 +0000, jillery said:
>>>
>>> [ ∑ ]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
>>>> troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
>>>> following as well:
>>>>
>>>> *****************************
>>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:18:25 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>> Lodder) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hint for bluffing your way into physics:
>>>>> Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
>>>>> both in printed papers and in ASCII,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>> *******************************
>>>
>>> What on earth is wrong with that?`
>>>
>> Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
>> (which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.
>
> Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
> with a certain regularity.
> She seems to acquire a new area of competence
> with every youtube movie she has seen.
>
> What outsiders don't realise is that sciences like physics or biology
> are also languages that you have to learn to use correctly.
>
> Athel for example will also be distrustful of someone claiming knowledge
> of biochemistry when he consistently fails to capitalise
> the letters in the vatamins C, D12, etc.
>
> Biologists will distrust the biological knowledge
> of people who fail to capitalise Linean species names correctly.

In principle yes, but even biologists sometimes write things like
Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. However, in the days when serious journals
had serious sub-editors they didn't make it into print.

> And so on.
> Those in the know do it in certain well established ways,
> those who do it differently are not in the know, probably.
>
> Jan

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On 4/24/2024 7:23 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> RonO wrote:
>> On 4/7/2024 5:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>> RonO wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
>>>> Some people worry about methane, but the effect is likely negligible
>>>> because methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.
>>>
>>>
>>> They are right to worry.  The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per
>>> square meter as compared to pre-industrial times.  Crudely speaking,
>>> this accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.
>>>
>>> Why is it so?  Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is
>>> not that short, being about 11 years.  As it is far more effective at
>>> absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.
>>>
>>> When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water
>>> vapour, which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself.  And this effect
>>> lasts.
>>>
>>> The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a
>>> century, is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4
>>> will be long gone at the end of that period.
>>>
>>> It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in
>>> the atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial
>>> times, but CH4 is up 160%.
>>>
>>> Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us.  As the world
>>> warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered organic
>>> carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2.  Arctic soils, in particular,
>>> hold vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more  than tropical
>>> soils. Field experiments have shown that the rate at which arctic
>>> areas are giving off greenhouse gases is increasing. This positive
>>> feedback could grow very nasty indeed.
>>>
>>>   We likely did
>>>> accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
>>>> dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had
>>>> already been increasing for thousands of years.
>>>
>>> Time scales matter.
>>>
>>> The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about
>>> 20k years ago, most of that in the first 10k.  We have now warmed the
>>> earth one degree C in less than two centuries.  And eight billion of
>>> us depend on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to that earlier
>>> climate.
>>>
>>> It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
>>> stable ecosystems.  Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant (and
>>> less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub.   And that's just the
>>> beginning.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We need to better define what the crisis is.
>>>>
>>>> We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming period.
>>>> For the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice age
>>>> cycles. The earth has been cooling for the last 3 million years, but
>>>> for the last million we went to a cycle of around a hundred thousand
>>>> years of cold interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand years of warmer
>>>> climate.  The temperatures of the cycles seem to have become more
>>>> extreme in the last 500,000 years.  The last warm period got warmer
>>>> than it is now, and more ice melted and sea levels were 20 meters
>>>> higher than they are now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Eemian warmth was different.  At this time the orbital eccentricity
>>> was more than double the current value.  With perihelion occurring in
>>> summer,  this led to strong increases in summer temperatures,
>>> decreases in winter.  The obliquity was also larger, meaning more
>>> heat in higher latitudes.
>>>
>>> The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
>>> winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also
>>> be difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and
>>> polar records.   Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not
>>> directly comparable to our little experiment which will be year-round
>>> warmth, with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.
>>>
>>> And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
>>> people.
>>>
>>>
>>>    We
>>>> have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not
>>>> yet as bad as they got without human industrial interference.
>>>>
>>>> There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed
>>>> that the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession
>>>> into another ice age.
>>>
>>>
>>> As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
>>> interpretation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    We might delay the next ice age.  This really doesn't seem to
>>>> be that bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nor would it be good.  Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms.  If
>>> we still are an industrial society when the next one comes along -
>>> some time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to deal
>>> with it.
>>>
>>> Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to Julius
>>> Caesar worrying about world war II.
>>>
>>>
>>>   We got a taste of what things would be like when
>>>> temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's
>>>> and didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is
>>>> supposed to be responsible for our current global warming.
>>>
>>>
>>> The little ice age ended well before CO2 from industry became a
>>> significant factor in climate.  It has been shown that stratospheric
>>> aerosols caused by increased volcanism account for about 60% of the
>>> little ice age cooling.  Given the noisy data, that's about as good
>>> as can expect, though solar, GHG and land-use effects were also
>>> accounted for.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    The earth has seen
>>>> warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to
>>>> the levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously
>>>> happened before.  So the regions that will be flooded will just be a
>>>> repeat of what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.
>>>
>>> You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels.  See above.
>>>
>>>
>>> William Hyde
>>>
>>
>> It looks like you didn't comment relevantly on that topic, just denied
>> it with no discussion.
>
>
> Really?  You started with the claim that methane is not an important
> greenhouse gas, and I went into some detail to show that it in fact is.
>
> Then you went on to speculate that global warming might save us from an
> oncoming ice age, and I reminded you that while an ice age is coming
> soon in geological time, it is very far away in human time, while damage
> from global warming is not.

I didn't say it would save us. I just said that the prediction was that
we might skip it, and that would be worse for the Arctic biology. It
would keep our crops from failing and our Northern cities from being
covered by a mile of ice, but as you say that would take thousands of
years. Skipping the next cold period would mean that there would be no
expansion of habitat for the arctic species that are now suffering a
decrease in habitat during the warm period.

>
> I did not mention ocean acidification, another consequence of our
> atmospheric pollution.   I gather from biologists that this is also
> rather important.

So you dismissed it because it is in our distant future. Why shouldn't
we consider it? The future is the future. Shouldn't you consider it
when thinking about doing something now? Perspective is that it got
warmer last warm period and more ice melted than has melted at this
time. More permafrost was defrosted than now. The bad things that they
are predicting happened last time, but you claim that it was different,
but that doesn't change the fact that they happened last time.

RonO wrote:
> On 4/24/2024 7:23 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> RonO wrote:
>>> On 4/7/2024 5:55 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>>>> RonO wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are putting out a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
>>>>> Some people worry about methane, but the effect is likely
>>>>> negligible because methane doesn't last very long in the atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are right to worry.  The effect of CH4 is about .5 Watts per
>>>> square meter as compared to pre-industrial times.  Crudely speaking,
>>>> this accounts for about a quarter of a degree of warming.
>>>>
>>>> Why is it so?  Well, the mean lifetime of CH4 in the atmosphere is
>>>> not that short, being about 11 years.  As it is far more effective
>>>> at absorbing IR than CO2 it can add a lot of heat before it is gone.
>>>>
>>>> When it does break down, some of it becomes stratospheric water
>>>> vapour, which is an excellent greenhouse gas itself.  And this
>>>> effect lasts.
>>>>
>>>> The effect of a unit of methane put into the atmosphere, over a
>>>> century, is still larger than that of a unit of CO2, though the CH4
>>>> will be long gone at the end of that period.
>>>>
>>>> It's short lifetime hasn't stopped us from increasing the amount in
>>>> the atmosphere. CO2 levels have not yet doubled from pre-industrial
>>>> times, but CH4 is up 160%.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the bio-geochemistry of CH4 works against us.  As the world
>>>> warms, microbes more actively devour our stock of sequestered
>>>> organic carbon, producing more CH4 and CO2.  Arctic soils, in
>>>> particular, hold vast amounts of frozen organic matter - far more
>>>> than tropical soils. Field experiments have shown that the rate at
>>>> which arctic areas are giving off greenhouse gases is increasing.
>>>> This positive feedback could grow very nasty indeed.
>>>>
>>>>   We likely did
>>>>> accelerate global warming with our increased output of carbon
>>>>> dioxide, but we did it at a time when global temperatures had
>>>>> already been increasing for thousands of years.
>>>>
>>>> Time scales matter.
>>>>
>>>> The earth has warmed about 4C since the last glacial maximum about
>>>> 20k years ago, most of that in the first 10k.  We have now warmed
>>>> the earth one degree C in less than two centuries.  And eight
>>>> billion of us depend on the ecosystems which were well adjusted to
>>>> that earlier climate.
>>>>
>>>> It appears that already forests in parts of the world are no longer
>>>> stable ecosystems.  Many will be replaced by more fire-resistant
>>>> (and less useful) trees, or by grass or scrub.   And that's just the
>>>> beginning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We need to better define what the crisis is.
>>>>>
>>>>> We probably should be nearing the end of the current warming
>>>>> period. For the last million years we have had the 100,000 year ice
>>>>> age cycles. The earth has been cooling for the last 3 million
>>>>> years, but for the last million we went to a cycle of around a
>>>>> hundred thousand years of cold interspersed with 20 to 30 thousand
>>>>> years of warmer climate.  The temperatures of the cycles seem to
>>>>> have become more extreme in the last 500,000 years.  The last warm
>>>>> period got warmer than it is now, and more ice melted and sea
>>>>> levels were 20 meters higher than they are now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eemian warmth was different.  At this time the orbital eccentricity
>>>> was more than double the current value.  With perihelion occurring
>>>> in summer,  this led to strong increases in summer temperatures,
>>>> decreases in winter.  The obliquity was also larger, meaning more
>>>> heat in higher latitudes.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that our temperature proxies are mostly summer ones -
>>>> winter does not leave us a lot of records. Tropical records can also
>>>> be difficult to work with, so there is a bias towards temperate and
>>>> polar records.   Eemian warmth is mainly summer warmth, and not
>>>> directly comparable to our little experiment which will be
>>>> year-round warmth, with a bias towards winter and higher latitudes.
>>>>
>>>> And, once more, the Eemian world did not have to support eight billion
>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    We
>>>>> have not reached that point, yet in this cycle, so things are not
>>>>> yet as bad as they got without human industrial interference.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was an article put up on TO, maybe a decade ago, that claimed
>>>>> that the current carbon dioxide levels could prevent a recession
>>>>> into another ice age.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As one of the authors of such a paper, I have to disagree with your
>>>> interpretation.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    We might delay the next ice age.  This really doesn't seem to
>>>>> be that bad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nor would it be good.  Ice ages begin very slowly in human terms.
>>>> If we still are an industrial society when the next one comes along
>>>> - some time in the next twenty thousand years - we will be able to
>>>> deal with it.
>>>>
>>>> Worrying about a future ice age at this point is equivalent to
>>>> Julius Caesar worrying about world war II.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   We got a taste of what things would be like when
>>>>> temperatures fell for the mini ice age that started in the 1300's
>>>>> and didn't end until the start of the industrial revolution that is
>>>>> supposed to be responsible for our current global warming.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The little ice age ended well before CO2 from industry became a
>>>> significant factor in climate.  It has been shown that stratospheric
>>>> aerosols caused by increased volcanism account for about 60% of the
>>>> little ice age cooling.  Given the noisy data, that's about as good
>>>> as can expect, though solar, GHG and land-use effects were also
>>>> accounted for.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    The earth has seen
>>>>> warmer climates that had more ice melting and sea levels rising to
>>>>> the levels that they claim may occur this time, but they obviously
>>>>> happened before.  So the regions that will be flooded will just be
>>>>> a repeat of what happened last time a hundred thousand years ago.
>>>>
>>>> You are drawing parallels where there are no parallels.  See above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> William Hyde
>>>>
>>>
>>> It looks like you didn't comment relevantly on that topic, just
>>> denied it with no discussion.
>>
>>
>> Really?  You started with the claim that methane is not an important
>> greenhouse gas, and I went into some detail to show that it in fact is.
>>
>> Then you went on to speculate that global warming might save us from
>> an oncoming ice age, and I reminded you that while an ice age is
>> coming soon in geological time, it is very far away in human time,
>> while damage from global warming is not.
>
> I didn't say it would save us.  I just said that the prediction was that
> we might skip it, and that would be worse for the Arctic biology.  It
> would keep our crops from failing and our Northern cities from being
> covered by a mile of ice, but as you say that would take thousands of
> years.  Skipping the next cold period would mean that there would be no
> expansion of habitat for the arctic species that are now suffering a
> decrease in habitat during the warm period.

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:07:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
><me@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On 2024-04-24 06:01:24 +0000, jillery said:
>>
>>[ … ]
>>
>>>
>>> Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
>>> troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
>>> following as well:
>>>
>>> *****************************
>>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:18:25 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>> Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hint for bluffing your way into physics:
>>>> Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
>>>> both in printed papers and in ASCII,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>> *******************************
>>
>>What on earth is wrong with that?`

The better question is: What's right with that?

>Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
>(which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.

Lodder's comments are at most technically correct only. That makes
them no better than a spelling flame, to show how much he knows about
the names of birds.

More important, Lodder completely ignored the cited video, and instead
chose to troll yet another mindless and irrelevant personal attack
against me. Not sure why you and your bedfellows act as if it's OK
to be willfully blind to willful stupidity.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 08:28:10 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 4/24/24 2:07 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

<snip for focus>
>> jillery makes some good points against Ron Dean (not difficult) but gets
>> the wrong end of the stick too often, IMO.

Faint praise using left-handed compliments and baseless allusions. No
surprise here.

>A lot of suppressed anger
>> there, I feel.
>
>"Suppressed"?

Right, because what jillery posts is so much angrier than the mindless
and irrelevant made-up crap posted about jillery by you and your
bedfellows.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
>Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>
>> On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:
>> > On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>> >> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
>> >>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>> >>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
>> >>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
>> >>>>> laugh;
>> >>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> You misunderstand.

<Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>

>> >> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
>> >> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
>> > need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
>> > a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
>> > is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
>> > derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
>> > Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
>> > So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
>> > involving any aspect of the above.

Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
original understanding.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:02:40 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) continues to troll:

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <me@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >On 2024-04-24 06:01:24 +0000, jillery said:
>> >
>> >[ ? ]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Since you are among those who make no distinction between those who
>> >> troll and those who criticize trolls, I expect you to ignore the
>> >> following as well:
>> >>
>> >> *****************************
>> >> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 18:18:25 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >> Lodder) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hint for bluffing your way into physics:
>> >>> Those in the know write E = mc^2, with that capitalisation,
>> >>> both in printed papers and in ASCII,
>> >>>
>> >>> Jan
>> >> *******************************
>> >
>> >What on earth is wrong with that?`
>> >
>> Nothing, aside from the minor "bluffing your way" snark
>> (which is typical of Jan, and easily ignored); it's correct.
>
>Well, Jillary is 'buffing her way into physics'
>with a certain regularity.
>She seems to acquire a new area of competence
>with every youtube movie she has seen.

Explain how posting a link to a Youtube video justifies "acquire a new
area of competence". You're just making up mindless crap because
you're too lazy/stupid to post anything intelligent about the video.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:08:36 +0200, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:

>On 24/04/2024 08:02, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:56:57 +0200, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Or maybe she just does that sometimes. (or wait... was *that* a joke? I
>>> don't even know what level to approach this at)
>>
>>
>> Why waste your time injecting yourself into something you admit you
>> know nothing about and have no interest in knowing anything about it?
>> Virtue signaling again?
>>
>
>Because you are one of my distinct memories of interacting on here, and
>it was with fondness more than annoyance that I saw you still seem to be
>the rare combination of reasonable person/super-aggressive crank that I
>remembered. And when Athel Cornish-Bowden made a response that *didn't*
>seem to recognize this I was confused and couldn't resist bringing it up
>on the off chance he really wasn't aware of the pattern.
>
>I knew it would upset you, and all I can say about that it wasn't my
>intent and I wish it didn't. But there's a limit to how hard I'll try
>and avoid doing so when I know how hair-trigger your reactions can be.

Yeah, I'm regularly the butt of baseless personal attacks. That's the
go-to technique by trolls to hijack discussions and evade substantive
issues. Not sure why that doesn't upset you also.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
> >Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
> >
> >> On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:
> >> > On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> >> >> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
> >> >>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> >> >>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
> >> >>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
> >> >>>>> laugh;
> >> >>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You misunderstand.
>
>
> <Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>
>
>
> >> >> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
> >> >> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
> >> > need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
> >> > a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
> >> > is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
> >> > derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
> >> > Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
> >> > So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
> >> > involving any aspect of the above.
>
>
> Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
> implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).

It wasn't what I meant; it was intended as an ironic look at JTEM's
craziness, but you decided (or mis-read) it as an insult to yourself, and
are still going on about it. Would an apology help?
Ok, I apologise.
Can we leave it there?

>
> The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
> as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
> more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
> original understanding.
>
>

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 2024-04-30 09:29:19 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400
> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
>>> Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
>>>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
>>>>>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
>>>>>>>>> laugh;
>>>>>>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You misunderstand.
>>
>>
>> <Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
>>>>>> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
>>>>> need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
>>>>> a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
>>>>> is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
>>>>> derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
>>>>> Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
>>>>> So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
>>>>> involving any aspect of the above.
>>
>>
>> Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
>> implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).
>
> It wasn't what I meant; it was intended as an ironic look at JTEM's
> craziness, but you decided (or mis-read) it as an insult to yourself, and
> are still going on about it. Would an apology help?
> Ok, I apologise.
> Can we leave it there?

For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages). Before
that I had jillery in my killfile but when I reappeared I couldn't
remember why she was there, so I took her out. However, she seems to be
determined to go back, and I shall respect her wishes.

In relation to your reply to JTEM, I think everyone except Jillery
understood what it meant.
>
>>
>> The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
>> as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
>> more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
>> original understanding.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 30/04/2024 06:56, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
>> Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:
>>>> On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
>>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
>>>>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
>>>>>>>> laugh;
>>>>>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You misunderstand.
>
>
> <Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>
>
>
>>>>> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
>>>>> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
>>>> need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
>>>> a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
>>>> is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
>>>> derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
>>>> Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
>>>> So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
>>>> involving any aspect of the above.
>
>
> Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
> implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).
>

That alternate explanation is, I guess, just about plausible enough to
justify a misunderstanding by a defensive reader but it *would* be a
misunderstanding as it fails on Grice's maxim of quantity. If Kerr-Mudd
had wished to commend JTEM for the implication jillery needs meds he
would have said "jillery". "It's others" includes jillery but also a
much larger group, and is the term that would be used when that larger
group is being referenced. The "*it's* others" as opposed to just
"others" highlights that "others need meds" is being opposed to the
counterfactual "not-others[=JTEM] needs meds". The maxim of relevance
suggests that this counterfactual is indeed what the sentence is hinting at.

> The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
> as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
> more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
> original understanding.
>

That, or you misunderstood and everyone else understood correctly which
is why they are uniformly disagreeing with you. I guess it would hurt
your soul to go back through past posts just *trying* the alternate
interpretive lens to see if it tracks.

I mean, that's the thing of it you know. If everyone were against you -
and on this point, they are! Why would they deny accusing you of needing
meds? Who on this board is too precious to make and stand by such an
accusation if they mean it? Does anyone talk to JTEM like "no JTEM John
Harshman wasn't calling you paranoid or a Russian agent, he was ~on your
side~ actually and you misunderstood"?

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ ...]
? >
>For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
>posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages).

Were you by any chance using news.individual.net? It was my only
service for a long time, no need to consider anything else as it was
totally reliable across the various newsgroups I frequented at that
time. Then it suddenly stopped posting to talk.origins with no errors
shown, just posts not appearing.. A few others reported the same
problem but nobody was ever to figure out why it was happening, the
suspicion was that it was something to do with NIN taking a dislike
the TO moderation software. I ended up adding eternal.september
specifically for TO.

[...]

On 2024-04-30 10:13:17 +0000, Martin Harran said:

> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [ ...]
> ?
>>
>> For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
>> posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages).
>
> Were you by any chance using news.individual.net?

Yes

> It was my only
> service for a long time, no need to consider anything else as it was
> totally reliable across the various newsgroups I frequented at that
> time. Then it suddenly stopped posting to talk.origins with no errors
> shown, just posts not appearing..

That was exactly my experience.

> A few others reported the same
> problem but nobody was ever to figure out why it was happening, the
> suspicion was that it was something to do with NIN taking a dislike
> the TO moderation software. I ended up adding eternal.september
> specifically for TO.
>
> [...]

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:13:17 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[ ...]
>?
>>
>>For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
>>posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages).
>
>Were you by any chance using news.individual.net? It was my only
>service for a long time, no need to consider anything else as it was
>totally reliable across the various newsgroups I frequented at that
>time. Then it suddenly stopped posting to talk.origins with no errors
>shown, just posts not appearing.. A few others reported the same
>problem but nobody was ever to figure out why it was happening, the
>suspicion was that it was something to do with NIN taking a dislike
>the TO moderation software. I ended up adding eternal.september
>specifically for TO.
>
IIRC (it's been a while) that was a fairly common problem
with various news servers back in the '90s; the
robo-moderation caused "issues" and t.o had to be manually
allowed by the servers as a "special case". Again IIRC, that
was an issue with my then-news server, comcast.net. I
*think* it's no longer an issue with most.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:02:16 +0200, Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:

>On 30/04/2024 06:56, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
>>> Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/04/2024 15:37, Arkalen wrote:
>>>>> On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> trolled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
>>>>>>> jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
>>>>>>>> <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
>>>>>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is this really better than just taking your meds?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think there's some kind of award here for posts that make people
>>>>>>>>> laugh;
>>>>>>>>> I commend JTEM's implication that it's others who need meds.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So yet another JTEM fan. No surprise here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You misunderstand.
>>
>>
>> <Kerr-Mudd's explanation missing here>
>>
>>
>>>>>> Now that you and your bedfellows have exercised your inner trolls,
>>>>>> perhaps you would take the time to specify what I have misunderstood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden said that JTEM implying that others (than JTEM)
>>>>> need meds made Athel Cornish-Bowden laugh, i.e. that JTEM needs meds in
>>>>> a way that is so obvious that the suggestion the opposite might be true
>>>>> is humorous. "Needing meds" in this context is clearly presented as a
>>>>> derogatory accusation of irrationality, both in JTEM's usage and Athel
>>>>> Cornish-Bowden's, making it extremely unlikely that ACB be a JTEM fan.
>>>>> So your apparent claim that he is a JTEM fan suggests a misunderstanding
>>>>> involving any aspect of the above.
>>
>>
>> Alternate explanation: Kerr-Mudd explicilty "commends" JTEM on his
>> implication that jillery needs meds (read it again).
>>
>
>That alternate explanation is, I guess, just about plausible enough to
>justify a misunderstanding by a defensive reader but it *would* be a
>misunderstanding as it fails on Grice's maxim of quantity. If Kerr-Mudd
>had wished to commend JTEM for the implication jillery needs meds he
>would have said "jillery". "It's others" includes jillery but also a
>much larger group, and is the term that would be used when that larger
>group is being referenced. The "*it's* others" as opposed to just
>"others" highlights that "others need meds" is being opposed to the
>counterfactual "not-others[=JTEM] needs meds". The maxim of relevance
>suggests that this counterfactual is indeed what the sentence is hinting at.

There's more than one way to interpret Grice's maxim of relevance
here; "it's others" is but a continuation of Kerr-Mudd's paraphrase of
JTEM's implication, and so references JTEM's original claim about me
only, and makes no reference to any imagined "larger group".

> > The multitude of mindless personal attacks by multiple posters who act
> > as if it's clever to exercise their inner trolls, inspired by nothing
> > more than what you call "a misunderstanding", further supports my
> > original understanding.
> >
>
>That, or you misunderstood and everyone else understood correctly which
>is why they are uniformly disagreeing with you. I guess it would hurt
>your soul to go back through past posts just *trying* the alternate
>interpretive lens to see if it tracks.

You and your bedfellows love to invoke baseless "guesses". Once
again, I suggest you test the sensitivity of your own soul, and
actually read the claims you and your bedfellows explicitly make about
my personal limitations in this very thread.

>I mean, that's the thing of it you know. If everyone were against you -
>and on this point, they are! Why would they deny accusing you of needing
>meds? Who on this board is too precious to make and stand by such an
>accusation if they mean it? Does anyone talk to JTEM like "no JTEM John
>Harshman wasn't calling you paranoid or a Russian agent, he was ~on your
>side~ actually and you misunderstood"?

Yes, that must be why Athel aped Harran, because he really, really
likes me.

I gave your first reply some grace because you had only recently
returned to T.O., and so might reasonably be ignorant of the tradition
of stupid manufactured arguments posted by those who have a need to
exercise their inner trolls. That your second reply continues to
ignore the personal attacks directed at me in this very thread
suggests such grace is unjustified.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:

>For two or three years the talk.origins server refused to accept my
>posts (I never did discover why; there were no error messages). Before
>that I had jillery in my killfile but when I reappeared I couldn't
>remember why she was there, so I took her out. However, she seems to be
>determined to go back, and I shall respect her wishes.

If only you would. As if you have a history of posting any
intelligent replies to me. Do yourself a favor and stop aping Harran
by bragging about your killfile.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge