You "obviously" know what he does think? What I got from his this word "I will not entertain the Turkic words (yir etc.) by commenting on them." is that he probably has no idea, has no knowledge about "Yir" and he just tried to hide his illiterate about this by "entertain" instead of saying simply "I do not know" that is a must to be said by a person with an academic approach that he showed some sign of it when commenting on other forms of "earth".
What I said was equivalent to the comment that the argument relating "yir" to "earth" is not even wrong, so berdnf interpreted it correctly.
I didn't (try to) establish any relation, but, their sounds (pronounciations/phonetics) of "Yir/Yer/Jir/etc" and "Earth/Erd/Erde/Eretz/etc" are not far from each others even if they are not very close to each others. (consonants here "y/j/etc" in "yir/yer/jir/etc" are not emphasized when they are pronounced. So, you may hear them as if "ir/er/etc"
Please refer to what I said earlier: Anyone can find similarities in a set of words. However, not everyone can derive a productive rule from the correspondences in order to prove that those words are really related.
This is the step missing, from a pseudo-linguistic theory to a proper linguistic theory: testing your hypothesis.