The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE

https://www.climatethemovie.net/

It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/31/2024 5:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:

The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE

https://www.climatethemovie.net/

It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the
creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
it, they tended to listen. Science denial is science denial, but what
is the real issue with global warming?

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. 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.

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. 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. We might delay the next ice age. This really doesn't seem to
be that bad. 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. Since we are around
the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
getting colder without human intervention. Europe would have been
rendered nearly uninhabitable. The Greenland colony died out during
this cold period. North America's northern latitudes would have likely
failed to be colonized by Europeans. The industrial revolution would
have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator. We would be
crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.

So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is. 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. If we delay the
next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm
period is extended. What we observe today are the remnants of what has survived thousands of years of reduced habitat. A lot of arctic species
had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution. Arctic
ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice. Things started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago. It
may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
that something that we want to happen? Do we want to go back to a time
when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around? The Islands
worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
out and more of the coral atolls be exposed. They would have issues
with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
be something above sea level during the next warm period.

So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
probably, has to be figured out.

Ron Okimoto

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/03/2024 18:19, RonO wrote:

On 3/31/2024 5:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:

The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE

https://www.climatethemovie.net/

It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

The NCSE had to take up global warming denial because the ID perps had
become the most effective organization for keeping creationism out of
the public schools because they were running their bait and switch scam
on the rubes that had converted over to ID creationism, so the
creationist attempts were effectively stopped because the creationists
had never listened to the science side of the issue, but when the creationists scam artists selling you the scam told the rubes not to do
it, they tended to listen.  Science denial is science denial, but what
is the real issue with global warming?

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.  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.

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.  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.  We might delay the next ice age.  This really doesn't seem to
be that bad.  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.  Since we are around
the end of the warm cycle it may be that things would have just kept
getting colder without human intervention.  Europe would have been
rendered nearly uninhabitable.  The Greenland colony died out during
this cold period.  North America's northern latitudes would have likely failed to be colonized by Europeans.  The industrial revolution would
have likely shifted to countries closer to the equator.  We would be
crying about very different circumstances if the world had continued to
get colder instead of warming back up by 1850.

So, we likely have to figure out what the crisis is.  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.  If we delay the
next ice age arctic ecology will suffer more than last time if the warm period is extended.  What we observe today are the remnants of what has survived thousands of years of reduced habitat.  A lot of arctic species
had already gone extinct before the industrial revolution.  Arctic
ecologies have their heydays during the glacial periods when currently
highly populated regions like New York were under a mile of ice.  Things started to get warmer before the glacial maximum 25,000 years ago.  It
may be that the climate should be getting colder at this time, but is
that something that we want to happen?  Do we want to go back to a time
when New York city was under a mile of ice and polar bears had sea ice
year round to hunt all the seals that were lying around?  The Islands worried about being flooded out would instead see their coral reefs dry
out and more of the coral atolls be exposed.  They would have issues
with things like getting the reefs reestablished in what was deeper
water, and they would have to try to reduce erosion so that there would
be something above sea level during the next warm period.

So, the crisis has to be defined, and what we should do about it,
probably, has to be figured out.

Ron Okimoto

Thank you so much for your comprehensive response, Ron. 🙂

Much appreciated.

Please clarify "NCSE" - I'm not certain to what organisation you refer.

--
David

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/31/2024 3:39 PM, JTEM 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.  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.

Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
and declaring that it doesn't match.

Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
level is maybe 16 feet too low.

So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.

So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
high at all, but actually pretty low.

"Ah, science!

Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
"Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.

Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!

Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
first place.

Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.

Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.

Google how much CO2 humans exhale.

Google the size of the human population at that time.

Google the size of the human population at the present.

Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
produces.

There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
billion tons.

REALITY:  The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
for them.

Do the math.

Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote. No one can do that for your post because you removed
just about everything and left just some uncontroversial facts. If you
are responding to the video, you should make that clear, but you seem to
have snipped out that part of the post.

Ron Okimoto

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 18:13:38 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <[email protected]>:

On 3/31/2024 3:39 PM, JTEM 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.� 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.

Not that you give a shit about science or anything else but, there is
not Gwobull Warling at all. You're comparing the Holocene to itself
and declaring that it doesn't match.

Don't deny it -- though you already have but -- you are comparing the
Holocene to itself and declaring that it doesn't match. This is as far
from science as you nutters can get. But, if you compare our present
interglacial, the Holocene, to the previous one then it's cold. Sea
level is maybe 16 feet too low.

So a reasonable comparison says it's too cold, an unreasonable,
unscientific comparison says it's hot, but even then only if we
ignore the natural variations within an interglacial. The
Medieval Warm Period, for example, was WARMER, as the name would
imply. As was the Roman Warm Period, again noting the name.

So, you're precious Gwobull Warbling cherry picks a low point, or
just ignores data entirely, only to invent a "High" which isn't
high at all, but actually pretty low.

"Ah, science!

Your second MASSIVELY stupid error was in ignoring the so called
"Solutions." If your precious Gwobull Warbling were real then all
the "Solutions" would map to the problem -- "too much CO2" -- and
thus lower it. But that's not what happened all all.

Your precious Gwobull Warbling scriptures have AGW kicking off
back in the 19th century when emissions hit 1 billion tons. Well,
absolutely ZERO percent of that CO2 has ever left the atmosphere,
according to your fake "Science" -- it lasts 300 to a thousand
years, according to NASA -- but in the mean time the growth in
human population alone accounts for easily in excess of twice that!

Just humans breathing -- and at this point there's something like
8 billion of us -- we produce easily more than TWICE the amount of
CO2 your scriptures claim got the whole AGW ball rolling in the
first place.

Do the math. Ask a grownup to show you how.

Google for the start date of your precious gwobull warbling.

Google how much CO2 humans exhale.

Google the size of the human population at that time.

Google the size of the human population at the present.

Subtract the population at the start of your precious AGW from
the present, then multiply by the amount of CO2 each human
produces.

There. If Gwobull Warbling is real (and it's not) then we
have slaughter most of humanity -- roughly 15 out of every
16 people must be executed. THEN we can have some form of
industrialization while keeping emissions at or below 1
billion tons.

REALITY:� The same self imposed elite who order you to shit
yourself in fright over Gwobull Warbling won't even discuss
banning private aviation. Flying First Class on a commercial
airliner is "Going to far." that's "Too much of a sacrifice"
for them.

Do the math.

Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote. No one can do that for your post because you removed
just about everything and left just some uncontroversial facts. If you
are responding to the video, you should make that clear, but you seem to
have snipped out that part of the post.

Exactly as has been his standard MO for years, and the
reason why any response to him is a waste of time.

--

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/31/24 3:59 AM, David Brooks wrote:

The new MARTIN DURKIN DOCUMENTARY : CLIMATE: THE MOVIE

https://www.climatethemovie.net/

It's rather an uphill battle I fear.

The website's intended audience appears to be illiterate people. I
didn't find any text summarizing, much less laying out and supporting,
Durkin's points. If you would be willing to do supply such text, then I
can discuss it with you.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/31/24 5:08 PM, JTEM wrote:

 RonO wrote:

Before you do that, you should

Gwobull Warbling isn't science. It's religion. You are worse than
the Young Earth Creationists because they at least know that
they're operating on faith.

The issue is worse than religion; it is fundamentalist economics. It particularly demonstrates the market failures of externalities and power.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 18:43:43 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<[email protected]>:

On 4/17/24 1:20 PM, JTEM wrote:

�RonO wrote:

Before you do that, you should try to relate your response to what I
actually wrote.� No one

Ah!� The collective doubles-down on it's stupidity, yet
again!

There is no collective. Ron's stupidity is his own. Jillery's stupidity
is her own. My stupidity is my own.

And of course your stupidity is unique.

Only in its persistence over a span of years. Otherwise it's
just garden-variety stupidity.

--

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 19:56:39 -0700
John Harshman <[email protected]> wrote:

On 4/18/24 11:17 AM, JTEM wrote:

�John Harshman wrote:

Now

Remember

I do. Do you still believe that almost everyone here is my sock puppet?
Can you support that claim? I'm guessing yes and no, respectively.

JTEM is unable to produce any logically consistent argument for
anything.

Yours, another sock.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23:41 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<[email protected]>:

On 4/18/24 9:16 PM, JTEM wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

I do. Do

Your third reply, NONE OF THEM on topic,

Welcome to talk.origins. Note that none of your replies to me have been >relevant to anything I said. I had hoped to find out something about
you, but I see that won't happen. My other sock puppets will have to
carry on from here.

Why would you *want* to know anything about him/her/it? "Oh,
look; it's a puddle of vomit. Let's see what I can find out
about it!" No. Just no.

--

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/04/2024 11:22, jillery wrote:

On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 08:44:50 -0400, JTEM <[email protected]> continues
to show that he's dumber than broccoli:

You were pretending that CO2
is causing Gwobull Warbling. THEN you insisted that the
earth has been hotter even when CO2 was much lower.

That is a contradiction, even if your disorders will not
allow you to see it.

There is no contradiction. CO2 is but one cause of global warming.

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

Another relevant point is the current climate is not in equilibrium.

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> wrote:

jillery wrote:

How discretionary.

[JTEM oversnipping not mine]

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.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-04-22 08:59:22 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

Yes. I was amazed at Jillery's misunderstanding. Maybe it was a joke of
some kind.


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <[email protected]>:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

??? Explain, please.

No surprise here.

--

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2024-04-22 08:59:22 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

Yes. I was amazed at Jillery's misunderstanding. Maybe it was a joke of
some kind.

Just an attempt to find a reason to pick yet another quarrel,
I guess,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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. The paper that was put up on TO did predict that
we might skip the next ice age. I recall the paper was published a
couple years before the Top Six were put out so that would be around
2015. I haven't heard much about it since. You may have written
something similar, but didn't come to the same conclusion. It was
likely that before that paper was published, no group had made a similar prediction, since I did not recall any such previous prediction.

If just as much ice melts as melted last time, why wouldn't sea levels
reach the same depths? Sea level was 20 meters higher than it is now,
or were you claiming that not as much ice was going to melt this time?

Ron Okimoto

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/04/2024 11:42, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

On 2024-04-22 08:59:22 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

Yes. I was amazed at Jillery's misunderstanding. Maybe it was a joke of
some kind.

Or maybe she just does that sometimes. (or wait... was *that* a joke? I
don't even know what level to approach this at)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 02:07:58 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 23:25:55 +0200, [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder) trolled:

<snip for focus>

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

Just an attempt to find a reason to pick yet another quarrel,
I guess,

Jan

That's what you do.

A "So what am I?" playground retort? feh.
Very poor debating technique.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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, [email protected] (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?`


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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/04/2024 08:02, jillery wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:56:57 +0200, Arkalen <[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:

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, [email protected] (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?`

I dunno; seems to some half-arsed attempt at stirring up some other spat.

jillery makes some good points against Ron Dean (not difficult) but gets
the wrong end of the stick too often, IMO. A lot of suppressed anger
there, I feel.


--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Arkalen <[email protected]> wrote:

On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:

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, [email protected] (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?`

I dunno; seems to some half-arsed attempt at stirring up some other spat.

jillery makes some good points against Ron Dean (not difficult) but gets
the wrong end of the stick too often, IMO. A lot of suppressed anger
there, I feel.

"Suppressed"?

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:

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, [email protected] (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.

--

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:37:52 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <[email protected]>:

On 24/04/2024 14:57, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 09:59:22 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:

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, [email protected] (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)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:02:40 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by [email protected] (J. J.
Lodder):

Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:

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, [email protected] (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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

Bob Casanova <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 09:17:19 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]>:

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, [email protected] (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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

For whatever reason the cold periods have gotten longer, and the
temperature shifts have become more extreme. Carbon dioxide is warming
up the planet, but the last look at it claims that it isn't as bad as we
think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Look at the graph of the Vostok station ice core data. Maybe we were not destined to get as warm as the last few warm periods. Two of the last 4
warm periods have gotten hotter than the current warm interval, but our
warm cycle seems to have faltered, and it looks like we should be in a
downward trend at this time, but something has kept that from happening.
The 4 previous warm period were warmer than it is now. Our temperature
seems to have peaked several thousand years ago for this cycle.

If you click on the Vostok link in the figure legend you can get the
methane numbers and for some reason this warm period is messed up. When
things got hotter last warm period methane levels peaked higher, but
dropped when the temperature started to fall. More ice melted than now,
and more permafrost thawed out, but the falling temperatures seem to
stop that even as CO2 levels remained relatively high. This cycle seems
to have been different even before we started pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere.

It sort of looks like we have already skipped the usual rapid
temperature downturn, and for some reason this cycle has maintained
higher temperatures for a longer period of time and it started long
before our CO2 intervention.

 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".)

It seems to have been a first for a scientific publication. As far as I
know it was the first such publication since the turn of the century.
Everyone had just been worried about global warming.

  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.

The Vostok data indicates that the last two cold periods had warming
cycles after the initial temperature crash. It got very cold, but then
warmed up again in a sort of roller coaster ride, but it looks like it
is just more noticeable than the previous temperature fluctuations.

The paper that I recall had a Science news article about it, and it was
the news article that noted something that was just mentioned in the
discussion of the paper.

  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.

Putting off the next ice age is about as urgent as dealing with the flu season in 6629.  Climate change is a problem now, not thousands of years
in the future.

Doesn't the Vostok data look like the next cold period has already been
put on hold? Based on previous warm periods we should already be
declining in temperature, and the decline should have started around
10,000 years ago. What would the temperature be now if it had risen and
fallen at the same rate that it has for the last half million years?

If we achieve a stable climate, and the natural progression of the ice
ages kicks in, we will be easily able to deal with it.  Assuming we are
at at least the current level of technical ability, that is.

You are going to stop Manhattan from being scraped down to bedrock by a
mile thick ice sheet. Would that be ethical? Shouldn't we be more
worried about making sure that the tundra gets established further
South. What ice age megafauna that we have left will be frolicking from
New Mexico across the great plains. They would be having the time of
their existence, but our crops would have been failing for thousands of
years before that.

 It was

likely that before that paper was published, no group had made a
similar prediction, since I did not recall any such previous prediction.

If just as much ice melts as melted last time, why wouldn't sea levels
reach the same depths?  Sea level was 20 meters higher than it is now,

That is off by a factor of two or three, probably due to an imperial to metric switch.  But it doesn't matter.

Again you say it doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? The islands
that they claim are going to flood did flood back then and life on those islands did become extinct. There was an article put up on TO where a flightless Rail had reevolved on an island that flooded during the last
warm period and wiped out that previous flightless Rail species. It
would seem to matter.

It is the global warming doom sayer articles that are claiming that
there is going to be a 20 meter rise in sea levels, they may be talking
about 20 feet. Wiki claims that sea levels were 20 to 30 feet higher in
the last warm period than today.

or were you claiming that not as much ice was going to melt this time?

If we carry on sea level will rise far higher than in the Eemian.

Even if it isn't going to get as warm as people claim?

West Antarctica and Greenland are vulnerable to melting and even partial collapse, and together could contribute about twelve meters of sea level rise.   Most of the ice is in East Antarctica, which is dynamically
stable at the moment, but still melting.

The total contribution of all three ice sheets is over sixty meters, and while it's hard to imagine what we could be that stupid, if we are the thermal expansion of sea water would kick in an extra ten meters or so.
 That would take millennia, though.  The melting could be done in a few centuries if we are crazy enough.

We simply cannot state with any precision what amount of melting we
would get with a given temperature rise.  But it seems unlikely that we
will stop short of 2.5C, and it is difficult to imagine that this won't eliminate most of our smaller ice sheets, for a rise of at least six
meters, plus whatever happens to East Antarctica.

Note also that sea level rise will not be uniform.

Has anyone figured out why the temperature hasn't risen and fallen at
the same rate as it has in previous warm periods? It looks like we
already were 2 degrees warmer than today (over 10,000 years ago), but
the temperature has been oscillating instead of peaking and falling.

Ron Okimoto

William Hyde

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 30/04/2024 06:56, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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"?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]> 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:13:17 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<[email protected]>:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:57:13 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<[email protected]> 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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/05/2024 13:16, jillery wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 12:02:16 +0200, Arkalen <[email protected]> wrote:

On 30/04/2024 06:56, jillery wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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".

Not really. Grice's maxims (or the cooperative principle) is the notion
that sentences should be interpreted based on the assumption that the
speaker was trying to convey a specific meaning that they expected the
listener to understand; the maxims are a tentative taxonomy of "rules"
in the choices speakers make following from that that can be used to
resolve apparent ambiguities or violated for humorous effect.


In this case I brought up the maxim of quantity because I agreed with
you that "others" *could* refer to you, but also any set of people that excludes JTEM. So there was an ambiguity, but that's easily resolved by
the fact that the maxim of quantity means people use the word that most
tightly fits the set that they actually mean - in this case the word
"jillery" would have been used if he'd meant "jillery".

(note that even if "jillery" had been used it's really the "it's" that
changes the meaning. "LOL JTEM thinks it's jillery who's the one that
needs meds" would have had the same effect while actually mentioning you).


As far as your suggestion goes, "making fun of JTEM" and "making fun of jillery" are both relevant things John K-M could have been doing in his
post at the point of the thread he posted it, so the maxim of relevance
applied to the whole sentence doesn't help disambiguate between the two possibilities. The "it's others" instead of just "others" *is* a choice
with different implications as to the intended meaning, hence why I
thought the maxim of relevance was, um, relevant there.


But I'm just having fun with Grice's maxims here; there is only so much analysis can accomplish when intuition has failed and I think we're way
past the point it can convince. My next attempt will be to wait for an opportunity to reply to some disparaging thing you say to someone else
with "It's so funny to see jillery suggesting it's *others* that have [disparaging issue]" and see if you interpret it as agreement with you
or an insult directed at you. (or, hopefully for the karmic balance of
the universe, I'll forget about this whole thing before I remember to do
that. But I'm so curious how it would go!)

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 put a lot of thought into what to write about your personal
limitations. I don't like hurting other people's feelings. I do like to
gossip but am very limited by that first thing. In this case I thought
it was worth getting into because interactions such as your original
response to John Kerr-Mudd can be discombobulating to people who don't
expect it and at least one other poster seemed genuinely confused. When
people are challenged on their sense of reality I think it can be worth speaking up to reassure them that they're not alone in seeing what they
think they're seeing. I'm sorry that this translates into challenging
your sense of reality instead. If we were interacting IRL I might do
things differently but on the internet there's only public words to work
with.

And maybe I was just doing the poster equivalent of bikeshedding. And
maybe even if I was it's fine because it's TO. And maybe not. All I can
say is I did put a lot of thought into things, whether any good came of
it or not.

Also, I can't really justify continuing response at *this* point. I'm
just interested I guess, and don't see it as particularly harmful to TO discourse.

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 wasn't saying Athel really likes you, I was pointing out that when he
had something negative to say about you he said it directly and nobody
acted like he had said something different. As everyone generally does
here with other posters - either say negative things straight out or not
say them at all, but not say negative things and then conspire to
pretend it wasn't negative at all.

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.

I didn't expect you to give me some grace so I appreciate that you did
even if for a limited time, thank you.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 01 May 2024 07:16:52 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:29:19 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:56:56 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:11:08 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:02:12 +0200
Arkalen <[email protected]> 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"
<[email protected]> trolled:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:11:51 -0400
jillery <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:45:17 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 14:38:23 -0400
JTEM <[email protected]> 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;

Nevertheless, it is what you wrote. You and your bedfellows rely on mindreading more than I do. Bad jillery, bad, bad, bad, so very bad.

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?

If only you would. Not only do you and your bedfellows continue to
blame me for this "misunderstanding", some escalate this otherwise
trivial issue to excuse their willful stupidity.

Ok, have it your way. Olive branch rescinded.

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

Didums.

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

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)