Statistics

Scientists Discover Animals Breathe

Scientists—Expert scientists—have discovered that animals breathe. And they are none too happy about it.

For these same scientists tell us that animal respiration contributes to global warming. Now called “climate change.”

And things that contribute to global warming, now called “climate change”, should not be allowed, because “climate change”, once called global warming, is bad. Why? Don’t ask.

When I saw this shocking new research, I became alarmed. I knew there were a lot of animals in the world, and the wretched beasties breathe. Just how bad could animal breathing be? I checked.

Insects, once source claims, number some 10 quintillion. Which is 10^18. Which is a lot. Ants alone account for some 20 quadrillion breathers. That’s 20 x 10^15. Ants breathe. They suck up oxygen through what passes for their skin and, what’s worse, emit carbon dioxide through that same non-skin! And as every schoolchild has pounded into them from birth, carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, now called “climate change.”

There are 35 trillion fish, give or take a trillion. Breathers all. At least 50 billion birds take to the air. And you just know they’re sucking up a lot of air and spewing apocalyptic levels of CO2, beating their wings like maniacs.

Most of these creatures don’t contribute to the variety of animals as much beetles. What’s that quote about God loving beetles? Wokepedia says they make up about one full quarter of all animal species. Amazingly prolific breathing polluters!

Man is far down on the list. A mere 8 billion, and with birth rates being what they are, a number soon to diminish.

So if we’re going to cure global warming, now called “climate change”, by reducing CO2 we’re going to have to eliminate a lot of ants, fish, birds and beetles. We’re going to have to put a hard stop to their naughty breathing with some pretty brutal culling. Good news is we don’t need to bother with man, since he is outnumbered by so many other breathers.

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.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.

Categories: Statistics

22 replies »

  1. Wait until these scientists find out plants PRODUCE co2 as well as consume it. Plants are no help whatsoever!

  2. When I first heard about this paper, I thought it might be a Sokal-like hoax, and it might be still, but it is increasingly hard to parody the reality we live in. If the paper is authentic in intent, then how long before we are hounded into to wearing carbon capture masks?

  3. ” then how long before we are hounded into to wearing carbon capture masks?”

    I’m torn between, “Don’t give ’em ideas”, and “YES! Faster!” I’d purely love to see carbon capture masks become a thing with the wokeratti.

  4. Climate Hysteria, closely related to Trump Derangement Syndrome, which includes rapid oral respirations and high decibel vocalizations, produces excess, excess carbon dioxide. We’re doomed I say, doomed!

    Slow shallow breaths are prescribed.

  5. It’s those of us who are fitness enthusiasts who are most to blame, with all our hard breathing. From now on I’m cutting down on my carbon footprint by holding my breath while jogging.

  6. could it be that women are more likely to be vegan and as a consequence emit mor methane than men
    I am assured tthough that women don’t suffer with flatus. so where does it come from?

  7. Hold on now.

    Wouldn’t we solve the exhalation problem if everyone just held their breath for a while? Well, not solve it exactly, but if, let’s say, every hour, we held our breath for a minute, wouldn’t that reduce Global Warming Climate Change (GWCC) significantly?

    And let us not forget that it’s the Exhalation Part of Breathing which is the real culprit. Inhalation is fine.

    So given that the average human is exhaling way too often, simply delaying or banking the exhalation part of breathing would hold the potential for some major savings since that same average human exhales 2.3 lbs of CO2 every single day.

    OR — just exhale as you ordinarily would, but do so into a plastic bag and seal it! (Ziploc works well! A kind of carbon capture system that anyone could do. At the end of the day you turn in all those sealed ziploc bags full of CO2 and the polar bears come back to Hudson Bay!! It’s so simple!

  8. “You can’t stop people from breathing.”
    Provably wrong.
    In fact, it’s a goal of the WEF.
    To paraphrase Goldfinger:
    They want us to die.

  9. Five To One – Jim Morrison

    Five to one, baby
    One in five
    No one here gets out alive, now

    I never realized that Jim Morrison was a statistician …

  10. The insects also breath, right? They need to shut down all the cricket and locust farms they are planning for us to eat. Kill all the vermin. Keep the cattle. One cow can feed 50 men, but it’ll take at least 50 crickets to feed one person. Simple math. Experts forget this.

  11. Human breath has always contained traces of: Carbon monoxide, Nitric oxide, Methane, Hydrogen, Hydrogen sulfide and a few others that I can’t recall at the moment. Ho Hum. It is mostly Nitrogen, a bit less Oxygen, more water, and quite a lot more Carbon dioxide in it that the inhaled atmosphere.

  12. The thing that struck me from these experts is that their abstract concluded, “… these values are approximately 0.05% and 0.1% of the total emissions of CH4 and N2O reported in the UK national greenhouse gas inventories.”

    Do they really think they know both the exhalations and the total gas production to the accuracy required to say 0.05 to 0.1%? Do they not understand the phrase “rounding error?”

    Do they think 0.05 to 0.1% is important?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *