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.
H/T petit-barde
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As I’ve been saying for a while now, “We are the carbon they want yo reduce”.
One of the primary problems is the publish or perish policy for professors at colleges and universities. The policy can be justified for many reasons but if you did a cost benefit for society we would come out on the short end of the stick. It has helped lead to crappy peer review and crappy studies like this one. For me I would put way more stock in a good teacher giving me instruction than a top notch researcher who was a mediocre teacher. Students are there to learn, they need all the best help they can get.
“Useless breathers”?
“This study aims to identify patterns in emissions from individuals that may alter emission estimates in national scale accounting and provide a realistic national emission for the UK in particular.”
Did they take into account the volcanoes emissions (say Pinatubo 1991 emissions alone, according even to the 1991 USGS article** on the subject) and compared them to human’s exhalations ?
More on the volcanoes CO2 emissions and possible discrepancies :
The USGS published an article** in which the authors state that volcanoes emit only 1% of what humans emit and that the 2015 human’s emissions* equals 700 Pinatubo 1991 eruptions. There seems to be a discrepancy between the James Hansen’s article*** and the USGS’s article of a factor of about 18000 :
*2015 emissions from burning fossil fuels : actual : 35.5 Gt (retained value : the estimation of 32.3 Gt in the USGS article, value they used to find the factor 700) :
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions
**USGS’s article (from Terrence M. Gerlach) :
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate
***James Hansen’s article :
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011006
“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.”
With the human population now well over 8bn people (and increasing rapidly) and many of them relying on rice (from paddy fields) as their staple diet the increase in CH4 must be quite significant. Has rice growing now overtaken flatulent ruminants?
Yet here we are with some scientists continuing to concentrate on publishing inconsequential irrelevancies to help keep the waters muddy!
“The study’s findings that 31% of participants were methane producers . . .” invites the questioning if the procedures were rigorous enough to insure the human emissions were sampled at the right location. 😜
TPTB tax our income, property, energy, acquisitions, water in/sewage out, vehicles, and many more things. I guess they are aiming to add breathing to the list.
I guess this is a back up for when people realise we produce a tiny amount of the global CO2 emissions in the UK. They do seem to be looking at the wrong end for methane emissions.
Ah, so that’s what the massive global project to inject the World population with toxic “experimental vaccines” is due to!
There is no real evidence that any of these gases affect out global climate no matter how much humans might exhale them The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by sceince so we no longer need to be studying it. We should not be wasting the money..
I’ve said for years that the people who believe climate change is caused by humans could end it now simply by not exhaling for 30 minutes.