In a recent study published in PLOS ONE, titled “Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions,” researchers have embarked on a quest that epitomizes the absurdity of current climate change discourse. This study, focusing on the emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from human breath, is not only a glaring example of scientific overreach but also a worrying indicator of the lengths to which climate alarmism is willing to go.

The study’s objective to investigate emissions from human breath in the UK population is fundamentally flawed. It operates under the assumption that these emissions are significant enough to warrant detailed analysis and inclusion in national greenhouse gas inventories. This premise is laughable at best, considering the minuscule percentage these emissions contribute to the overall greenhouse gas emissions.

The methodology employed in the study is questionable. Collecting 328 breath samples from 104 volunteers hardly constitutes a representative sample of the UK population. Furthermore, the study’s reliance on such a small sample size to draw conclusions about national-scale emissions is a classic case of over-extrapolation.

The study’s findings that 31% of participants were methane producers and that all participants emitted nitrous oxide are presented without adequate context. These results are portrayed as significant, yet they fail to consider the broader environmental impact. The fact that these emissions are stated contribute a mere 0.05% and 0.1% to the UK’s total emissions of CH4 and N2O, respectively, well below any margin of error in “national inventories” renders these findings insignificant.

The idiocy of this study and the entire genre of human behavior studies, whether it be meat eating, or owning pets, diverts attention from more pressing environmental issues and misallocates resources that could be better used elsewhere. This approach is indicative of a climate change narrative that is increasingly detached from reality. This study dangerously overstates the impact of human biological processes on climate change. By attributing environmental consequences to the act of breathing, it sets a precedent for viewing every aspect of human existence through the lens of environmental impact. This perspective is not only scientifically unsound but also potentially leads to dehumanizing policies.

The study, and the subsequent media coverage, lack a rational discourse on climate change. There is a conspicuous absence of critical analysis or questioning of the study’s relevance and implications. This omission is a testament to the current state of climate change discussions, where sensationalism often trumps scientific rigor.

The obsession with carbon, its compounds, and greenhouse gases as seen in this study’s focus on CH4 and N2O, is a misplaced concern. It reflects a narrow view of the complex and dynamic nature of Earth’s climate system. This fixation on carbon emissions is a distraction from more holistic environmental strategies.

The implications of this study for policy making are extremely concerning. It represents a step towards justifying intrusive and overreaching policies based on negligible environmental impacts. Such an approach is not only impractical but also poses a threat to personal freedoms which continue to be under attack daily and the dignity of human life.

In conclusion, this study is emblematic of the absurd lengths to which climate alarmism has gone. It represents a worrying trend in the climate debate, where even the most basic human functions are scrutinized for their environmental impact.

There is a dire need for a return to scientific sanity and rational discourse in addressing environmental issues. The path to a prosperous future does not lie in fear-mongering or exaggeration but in reasoned and rational scientific inquiry.  I know we can’t expect that from the current crop of ideologically captured academics, but we must not stop working toward weeding out the rot in these institutions, even though it will likely take decades.

#

Breathing Causes Global Warming – by Tony Heller

“Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming. “

Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions – PubMed

#

Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs on breathing/climate study:  Excerpt: The peer-reviewed paper is “Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions” by Ben Dawson and other Experts in PLoS ONE.

One of two of these Experts have, it seems, some training in chemistry. So pay close attention to these sure-to-be accurate words from the Abstract: “Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming.” Now called “climate change.”

I mean, who knew?

These Experts gathered “104 volunteers” and put the scientific method to work. They collected breath samples from these volunteers.

My favorite sentence in the whole paper is this: “The percentage of methane producers (MPs) identified in this study was 31%.”

Methane producers sounds like womb possessors to my ears. Oh, because somebody’s going to ask, yes: the word flatus does make an appearance. Not cows. Human flatus.

Amusingly, “Females (38%) were more likely to be MPs than males (25%),” which means that when the culling comes, women go first. And blacks. Yes: “African populations [are] much more likely to be MPs…”

Our Experts took at stab at estimating the amount of “climate change”-making breath from all the humans in the UK, and came to some number of tons of carbon dioxide per annum. They did not perform this same service for the more numerous other animals. So we must classify this research as preliminary.

I don’t know about you, my dear friends, but the first question that came to my mind when I read this breathtaking research was: how could people be this stupid?

It has been known for quite a while that man exhales CO2. The amounts were also on the books. Ask any doctor who graduated before the woke struck medical schools.

You can’t stop people from breathing. And you can’t stop more people from breathing more, it being the policy of the UK to replace the natives with “migrants”. All of whom breathe.

Could it be, could it really be, that these academic Experts want to reduce the surplus population to cut down breathing and save us from the ravages of global warming. Now called “climate change”?

Maybe, at some level. Imaging the tortuous death of our enemies is always a fun pastime, especially among academics. But a much more likely explanation is the deep desire to be thought profound and important.

All academics suffer this terrible disease. The need to produce “research” guarantees this affliction.

Global warming, now called “climate change”, is big. No bigger area of science. Regardless of your training, if you’re not active in this area who are you? Nobody, that’s who.

Before I let you go: our Experts forgot photosynthesis. How could they forget photosynthesis? Don’t know. But nearly every Expert does.

#