Streetwise Professor

July 8, 2022

Wage War on the Gateway Gas!

Filed under: Climate Change,Politics — cpirrong @ 10:21 am

It is indeed gratifying to see Dutch police beating, tear gassing, and even shooting at farmers (including 16 year olds) protesting the Fourth Reich’s righteous diktats on nitrogen. Serves them right!

Actually, the EU and its Dutch gauleiters are targeting nitrous oxide, another malign greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide and dihydrogen monoxide (i.e, water, in vapor form). And of course sulfur dioxide is another horrible pollutant.

Do you see the problem here, ladies and gentlemen, ladygentlemen, and [insert your narcissistic self-identification here]? The common element–literally?

Of course you do. Oxygen! Oxygen is at the root of our existential climate crisis. Why should we attack the greenhouse gasses individually? Why not attack the root of the problem? Target its schwerpunkt? Yes, cut off well, the oxygen to the oxides. Problem solved!

We must therefore wage total war against this horrible gateway gas.

It’s up to you to do your part: don’t hold your breath waiting for politicians or polizei to do it for you.

Well, actually, holding your breath is your part: your turning oxygen into carbon dioxide is part of the problem. So save the planet: stop breathing. This will also solve the Dutch farmer problem: if you don’t breathe, you don’t eat–hence, no farmers and their nasty nitrogen!

You know your duty. Just do it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

37 Comments »

  1. It’s a puzzle that the EU doesn’t just breach the dykes and drown the lot of them.

    Comment by dearieme — July 8, 2022 @ 11:44 am

  2. @dearieme. Give them time.

    Comment by cpirrong — July 8, 2022 @ 2:14 pm

  3. You’re not far wrong on the banning of oxygen, Craig. The entire genocidal element of the eco-Nazies is de-oxygenation once removed.

    Rather than removing the oxygen from the people, their solution is to remove people from the oxygen

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 8, 2022 @ 2:33 pm

  4. All good, Prof, I did chuckle. But what is humour to the reasonable person is, to the humourless, miseducated midwit, an idea. I expect ‘de-oxygenation’ to turn up in Klaus’ WEF talking points in the near future.

    Comment by Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break — July 8, 2022 @ 5:16 pm

  5. @Ex-Global Super-Regulator on Lunch Break–Thanks. Glad you chuckled. The key to effective satire is it being outrageous yet believable. And yes, it is certainly believable that Klaus et al could take the idea seriously.

    Comment by cpirrong — July 8, 2022 @ 5:30 pm

  6. @Pat Frank. Oh, I know. They want to save the planet by having billions die. It’s merely a question of means, not intent.

    Comment by cpirrong — July 8, 2022 @ 5:31 pm

  7. Not sure what environmental policy or protest has anything to do with it. If you drove a vehicle through a police blockade in the US would you expect the police to respond differently?

    And no they didn’t shoot protesters – they fired at the vehicle – nobody was injured in the incident.

    As for secondary protest/blockading, in most countries that’s illegal. Striking/protesting workers are not entitled to interfere with the operations of unrelated business. Not sure why protesting farmers should get a pass in this regard and be allowed to interfere with shops and airports – owned and run by people who have nothing to do with pushing through the policy they disagree with.

    Comment by derriz — July 9, 2022 @ 6:13 am

  8. You jest – but they take it as next day agenda, items on a checklist

    Comment by Tatyana — July 9, 2022 @ 10:03 am

  9. Urrgghh, not nitrous oxide AKA laughing gas (much needed here..), but other naughty nitrogen-bearing gases like ammonia and NO2, surely? I’m sure our resident chemist, the ever retentive Dr (?) Fwank, will be along to put us straight.

    Anyhew, per Derriz, I’d have thought you’d have all been impressed by their police’s impressive restraint with regard to their alleged firearms use. I mean, as far as we are aware no-one was riddled with 60 bullets, so a win, surely? On which note I was going to post about the 4th of July shooting on the previous post but didn’t want to put a downer on the festive bonhomie. After hearing about the incident I did wonder, where o where were all these armed citizens we hear so much about? Did they flee from the scene or cower behind the nearest float? Also, in your ideal world where everyone is armed, how then does one go about discerning an active shooter? If everyone is tooled up and pulls a gun at the first hint of trouble, hoping to be the one to kill said assailant and be born aloft by their local NRA chapter, surely it will be nigh on impossible to know who is who, a recipe for a full-blown bloodbath? Are you sure you’ve all thought through this whole mass gun ownership thingy?

    Comment by David Mercer — July 9, 2022 @ 10:46 am

  10. @DM,

    By UK standards, the US is already at mass gun ownership—upwards of the 1/3rd of the population. 43 states are now “shall issue” states meaning, meet the legal standards, the state shall and must issue any required permit. The latest SCOTUS ruling merely means the 7 outliers and DC can no longer apply arbitrary standards where the local sheriff can deny a permit for no objective reason. Arbitrary decision making by government functionaries is something we all should be able to understand. BTW, the legal standard cannot be so onerous as to be prohibitive.

    Comment by The Pilot — July 9, 2022 @ 1:32 pm

  11. Well, if there existed no “righteous diktats on nitrogen”, then the Prof would get his wish, the aquatic environment would indeed be completely starved of oxygen. Not all regulation is immoral or based on nonsense.

    Comment by HibernoFrog — July 11, 2022 @ 5:37 am

  12. @Pilot. Yes but where are they all? Surely there must have been at least one right-minded gun carrying citizen at this event? Also, what’s the guidance (police/NRA/etc) if you are armed and encounter an active shooter – are you expected to do something?

    Comment by David Mercer — July 11, 2022 @ 1:29 pm

  13. “if you are armed and encounter an active shooter – are you expected to do something?”

    Fun fact, if you are an armed, on-duty police officer, you have no obligation to do something (Supreme Court decision in the 70s, IIRC).

    Comment by HibernoFrog — July 12, 2022 @ 2:12 am

  14. Active shooter stopped by armed citizen, generally reported incorrectly or not at all in the press.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 12, 2022 @ 4:36 pm

  15. But, of course, Tommy Robinson is worse, hey David?

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 12, 2022 @ 8:21 pm

  16. Yes, it’s all an MSM conspiracy. How silly of me. And is Tommy Robinson still a thing? I thought he’d disappeared up his own a$$ after going bankrupt.

    Seriously though, what is the guidance? Is there an unwritten rule that gun owners are expected to do the right thing? Anyone?? If not, well….

    Comment by David Mercer — July 13, 2022 @ 4:02 am

  17. @16, not a conspiracy, David, just the uniform behavior of those submerged in the culture of foolishness, of which you also are a participant.

    Interventions happen. They’re not noted by the press. You don’t hear about them. QED.

    Re. your focus on Tommy Robinson: thanks for proving my point. You couldn’t help doing so, could you participant.

    When is *not* doing the right thing expected?

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 13, 2022 @ 6:14 pm

  18. Annd still no answer. It was timely to witness the Uvalde CCTV footage yesterday (sans children screaming, of course). The NRA’s argument that you only need one good person with a gun to stop and bad person with a gun rings kind of falls short, no? As someone pithily pointed out, you had a veritable gaggle of good guys with guns, yet they stood around for a good hour sanitizing their hands etc.

    Also, what was with the cop with the Punisher screensaver on his phone which has been doing the rounds on SM? Epic self-regard which fell totally short when the moment came.

    Comment by David Mercer — July 14, 2022 @ 6:37 am

  19. @18 says David from the safety of his armchair.

    Answers were provided here and here.

    But you didn’t look at them, did you.

    But archly vacuous cynicism is your preferred state, isn’t it.

    I’ve had another manuscript accepted for publication that’ll frost a whole new set of your progressive hackles, David. Won’t you just love it.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 14, 2022 @ 8:06 pm

  20. More like from the safety of a country with sensible gun laws.

    Annnnd still no answer. It’s a very straightforward question – is any there guidance or advice? Any at all?? The thing is, if there isn’t, or if its something vague like “if you think you can”, it gives all those ‘good’ gun owners carte blanche to do nothing.

    What I’d really like to see is research on the number of mass shootings where there were armed citizens present but they opted not to intervene for whatever reason (as I suspect happened in Illinois on July 4th). Of course gathering data would undoubtedly be problematic – what gun-owner would admit to this, even anonymously? The shame…

    Also you do know that open-source self-publishing doesn’t really count? Their peer review is laughable at best. Still, if you want to waste your meagre salary (by local standards) to impress the Francess Thomas’s of the world, by all means knock yourself out.

    Comment by David Mercer — July 15, 2022 @ 2:42 am

  21. @20 That would be open-source peer-reviewed publishing, David, with bona fide scientist-reviewers and manuscript editors of quality academic standing.

    You didn’t think to check, did you, before offering smirk.

    The climate model paper has not been falsified. Despite many (shockingly incompetent) efforts.

    It’s merely ignored by those whose careers and incomes depend on climate alarm. And why wouldn’t they ignore it? They pay no price for pushing pseudoscience and the money keeps rolling in.

    As usual, David, you’re without knowledge and comment foolishly.

    Safe? You’re such a jokester.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 15, 2022 @ 12:35 pm

  22. I’m more than familiar with open source publishing, enough to know that all manner of crap passes their peer review process, and that sane academics steer well clear. Which publisher is it, or are you two timid to tell?

    The thing is, if you’re so confident of your findings, why not go to a mainstream journal, save yourself your hard-earned? Getting past their peer review would add so much credence to your paper, no? You may even get Stanford’s blessing (honestly, like that’s ever going to happen on God’s green Earth).

    Ahh knife crime, that ol’ chestnut. Funny, you don’t hear so much about it in the UK media nowadays, I wonder why? I can’t even contemplate the mental gymnastics one would have to go through to justify mass gun ownership as a solution to this “problem”. (Why stop at guns? Give everyone a Javelin! No, HIMARS!! Don’t let ‘em get within 70km of you!!!)

    Comment by David Mercer — July 17, 2022 @ 6:30 am

  23. Err, just read this from that report you linked:

    “Sharp instrument homicide data has been collected by the Home since 1977. In the year ending March 2021 there were 224 homicides (currently recording) using a sharp instrument, including knives and broken bottles”

    That’s an average of just over 5 homicides per year. By comparison, approx 6000 people die per year in home accidents, per RoSPA data. Maybe we need guns to protect us from the tyranny of staircases, barbeques, electrical appliances etc etc, stalking our every move while we go about our lives?

    Comment by David Mercer — July 17, 2022 @ 6:51 am

  24. @22 “all manner of crap” which merely means you’re unable to evaluate the papers yourself.

    Content matters over journal, David. Or does the suit make the man in your world?

    Why does it not seem wise to you, David, to refrain from commenting in ignorance?

    Here: 45MB zip file of evidence demonstrating that climate modelers are scientific incompetents. Or if you want the short version: Are Climate Modelers Scientists?

    Do you understand the concept of an adversarial review, David? Or of protecting the narrative? Phil Jones famously wrote that he and Kevin Trenberth would revise what the peer review literature is, so as to keep a critical paper from being published.

    That’s modern climatology. Utterly Lysenkoist. Does that bother you? Or do you celebrate censoring troublesome refutations?

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 17, 2022 @ 10:34 am

  25. @23 “That’s an average of just over 5 homicides per year.

    You misread the statistic, David. The homicide rate is April 2020 through March 2021. The 224 knife murders is a one-year rate.

    The Excel chart showing the full UK homicide rate data set says 595 recorded homicides in the UK during that year.

    So your calculation is off by 2 orders of magnitude.

    Let’s clarify the question of gun ownership. From where does the US government get permission to own guns?

    Think hard, David. As a POHM, the answer will be a foreign concept to you.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 17, 2022 @ 10:49 am

  26. The thing is, no-one’s listening anymore (record breaking temperature here in the UK today…). You’re literally shouting into the void. I reckon you’d be better served if you changed tack e.g. go all doom and gloom and say that there’s nothing we can do and may as well carry on using fossil fuels.

    I note you didn’t supply the name for the online journal you used. What’s the matter – you shy?

    Permission to own guns? Of course, that arises from that immutable law of nature, which mysteriously only exists in one miniscule part of the universe.
    Re Uvalde, I just read that c.400 law enforcement personnel turned up to the incident. How many ‘good’ guns was that?

    Comment by David Mercer — July 18, 2022 @ 3:16 am

  27. @26 As the climate warms from its Little Ice Age lows, “record-breaking temperatures” will be commonplace.

    Our temperature record covers only the last 150 years, starting with the LIA lows. “Record breaking” conveys nothing extraordinary except perhaps a febrile delusion.

    The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than now, as indicated by the high northern latitude of the tree line back then.

    The Roman Warm Period was warmer than the Medieval, the Minoan warmer than the Roman, and the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 years BCE was the warmest of all — easily 2 C warmer than now.

    All those warm periods occurred without benefit of rising CO2. There’s no evidence that changes in atmospheric CO2 have ever driven air temperature throughout the known geological record. There’s no reason to think that CO2 has changed its spots and is doing so now.

    Nothing unusual is going on with the climate. It’s not difficult, David. One merely needs a fact-based perspective.

    The IPCC speaks entirely from ignorance. Climate models have no predictive value.

    Wrong answer on guns, David.

    The US government is permitted to own guns because we, the people, granted permission. We can remove that permission by Constitutional amendment. The US government has no authority to ban guns because it has no right to own them. The people have that right, and retain it.

    As to Uvalde, here’s another question to clarify the issue for you: does abuse of a right by some abrogate that right for all?
    Once again, the concept is foreign to someone raised as a subject.

    I’ll post a link to the accepted paper once it’s published. Given the subject, I expect our host Craig will be very interested.

    You’re welcome to then have a field day. A predictions: you’ll not refute word one of it.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 18, 2022 @ 11:11 am

  28. I’ll await your paper. Still deeply suspicious that you won’t tell me the name of the journal. Surely that’s allowed, isn’t it?

    My answer re gun ownership was precisely correct.

    Admittedly you’re way too far gone to realistically consider any meaningful restrictions in ownership. My point, which you pointedly refuse to address, is that your collective principle justifications for ownership (self-defense, the protection of innocent unarmed third parties etc) seems to be repeatedly undermined by existing gun owners not doing the right thing i.e. being too timid when they need to step up, use or over-use when clearly not required etc.

    Comment by David Mercer — July 19, 2022 @ 6:11 am

  29. @28 — I provided two links to compilations of gun-owners “doing the right thing.” You have determinedly ignored them. So, how about if you do the right thing, David, and deal honestly with the data.

    Your answer re: gun ownership precisely missed the point. The right to own guns is with the citizen, not with the government. Government gun ownership is a privilege. The citizen’s gun ownership is a right. Everything else is a side-bar.

    I won’t reveal the name of the journal until publication because various fields are so politicized by those who think as you that attempts to squelch publication are commonplace.

    Your suspicions are themselves suspect, David.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 19, 2022 @ 4:47 pm

  30. A right conferred by whom? Did it just miraculously appear, or was it dictated from on high? As I said, it’s an immutable law…in the tiny, dogmatic minds of those adherents. The fact this right arose from an amendment says it all i.e. that they didn’t get big doc right the first time (“Dang, we forgot to mention the guns! Quick, get a pen!”) and decided to change it. No reason you can’t do so again if you so desired, no?

    And you’re afraid of lil’ ol’ me?! That’s hilarious. As far as p*ss poor excuses go, that’s the p*ss poorest. Do you honestly think they’d pull your paper if I told them you were an unhinged crank? What kind of business do you think they’re running??

    Comment by David Mercer — July 20, 2022 @ 5:24 am

  31. @30 — you’ve still no clue, David. Right to bodily integrity, right to free thought, and right to self-defense with respect to other humans are intrinsic with self-consciousness.

    Do you claim that some humans are inherently superior to all others, free to possess other’s bodies or take their lives ad libitum? If not, then you admit to intrinsic rights possessed by each human with respect to all other humans.

    Individual rights impose no obligations on others, except the respect of freedom.

    The right to gun ownership is implicit in the Constitution, which, I remind you, begins with “We the People.” The Bill of Rights was added as the first 10 amendments because Jefferson and Madison — wise men that they were — wanted certain rights explicated as a hedge against any future urge to tyranny. But all rights of humans remain, Constitution or no.

    Rights are intrinsic. They are not conferred by amendments or bills. Rights precede and supersede amendments. Rights can be trampled upon. Never abrogated.

    The people conferred powers upon the government, not the other way round. Governments have no rights. They have privileges. Privileges that the people can remove.

    That’s the basis of the US, David. Gun ownership is a right. End of story.

    I do not fear you, David. I merely recognize the urge of your political stripe to pressure, to censor, and to suppress. So, I don’t want to publicize the journal for now. That reticence has nothing to do with you, personally.

    You’ve yet to carry a disagreement. So who’s the crank?

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 20, 2022 @ 6:47 am

  32. Your last explains my point, precisely. You can come up with any ol’ bollox (as you just did) and claim it to be an inalienable ‘intrinsic’(!?) human right – a right to light, a right to UBI, a right to healthcare, a right to a private jet etc. As you say, the fact some are spelled out in the Constitution is neither here nor there; according to your argument, if I or anyone else can claim a right then, it must be treated seriously and fairly. No exceptions. No amendment necessary. So here goes – say one of your fellow citizens claims a right not to be gunned down when going about their daily business. Or the right to bodily integrity, whatever that means. This may cut across your claim to a right to own a weapon for self defence, but tough sh*t, their right is their right. You must respect it. All rights are equal, but in this instance, where they’re in conflict, what then happens? Something must give, no? But apparently not your right – in your world, your rights trump all others. No negotiation, no compromise, no respect – a full-on abrogation of others’ claimed rights, however reasonable. Which is why you are where you are, with a good portion of your population dead-set against you.

    I’m guessing the real reason for your reticence is that the publisher is embarrassingly inconsequential. But hey, knock yourself with your dull conspiracy theories.

    Comment by David Mercer — July 20, 2022 @ 1:23 pm

  33. What part of “Individual rights impose no obligations on others, except the respect of freedom.” do you not understand, David?

    There can be no right to healthcare. One cannot force another to care for one’s health. Given healthcare, anyone has the right to seek it. See the difference? The same logic applies to the rest of your fatuous examples.

    …right not to be gunned down … across your claim…” That non-sequitur is a stretch even for you David.

    One’s right to own a gun does not cut across anyone’s right to not be gunned down.

    The rights of one do not impact the rights of another, except in your world where no one has any rights at all, except the government — or the collective is it?

    The real reason for my reticence is as I told you. You may invent as you like; as you invariably do

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 20, 2022 @ 4:02 pm

  34. Hi Craig — welcome back. 🙂 Can you please rescue my post from spam purgatory, thanks,

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 23, 2022 @ 2:21 pm

  35. Hi, Pat. Thanks. Sorry, but I looked in the spam queue and there’s nothing from you there.

    Comment by cpirrong — July 23, 2022 @ 6:05 pm

  36. Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEM Psych 2022, 4(3), 404-434 available here.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 23, 2022 @ 10:16 pm

  37. Craig, something was wrong with the comment. It wouldn’t post after several tries. So, I posted just the title, which tells the story, and the link. The paper thoroughly falsifies a grievance narrative being leveraged to wreck university science departments.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 23, 2022 @ 10:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress