A new government-funded study out of Britain, conducted by scientists at the U.K. Center for Ecology and Hydrology, purports to show that “human breathing is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.”

Therefore, the study authors are urging “caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.”

The peer-reviewed study published in the Public Library of Science’s journal PLOS One investigated greenhouse gas emissions of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath, which allegedly “contribute to global warming.”

Well, there it is! I knew it was coming! Are you serious about stopping global warming? Well, then, just stop breathing!

What a boon to depopulationists! Turns out “we are not the ones we have been waiting for”; we are the problem!

Of course, some of us suck up more air — and are bigger blowhards — than others. You know who you are. Al, Greta, John Kerry, the Donald…?

Gee, I wish we had a smarter God, one who didn’t design humans (and most animals) to respirate! And then have the nerve to say, “Be fruitful and multiply!”

The implementation of “statist interventions” and “unreliable energy alternatives” isn’t enough.

So if you truly care about the planet, please go ahead and make the ultimate sacrifice.STOP BREATHING!

Do it for the scientists who conducted the study. Do it for Al, Greta, and John. Do it for Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF). I’m sure they will thank you for it.

They might even breathe a sigh of 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.