Posted On: Wednesday - November 4th 2026 10:02PM MST
In Topics: University Global Climate Stupidity
This post comes to you from the back room in a dingy old VFW Hall, where your Peak Stupidity bloggers are working on their first steps of an expensive 12-step program. The election last night was hard on us, so we're still on Stage 1, Gun Cleaning.
We'll get back to the politics, but here is some roots stupidity for this evening.
SciTechDaily, errr, that'd be Scientific Technology Daily, I guess, reports straight from the scientific literaturein Human Bodies Are Producing Two Billion Tons of CO2 a Year. Should we be worried? Should we breathe in more and out less? I hope I'm not the only one reading this article, as I can't help very much all by myself.
A new study reveals that the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human metabolism has increased dramatically over three decades.That was in bold in the article, so that sound pretty alarming. I wanted to know more.
The carbon dioxide produced by human bodies as they convert food into energy increased by 74% over three decades, according to a University of Bath-led study. By 2015, the global total had reached an estimated 2.05 billion metric tons (2.26 billion U.S. tons) annually, highlighting a substantial component of the Earth’s carbon cycle that scientists had not previously quantified on this scale.Nobody included this CO2 in the whole Climate Modeling Industry because... well, it's a wash.
Unlike emissions from burning fossil fuels, the CO2 humans exhale largely comes from carbon recently absorbed from the atmosphere by plants and transferred through food.Yeah, as I said, or as said by others, "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust." Why is the amount of CO2 exhaled going up, more people in the world?
Published in The Lancet Planetary Health, the study found that annual CO2 production from human metabolism rose from 1.18 billion metric tons (1.30 billion U.S. tons) in 1985 to 2.05 billion metric tons (2.26 billion U.S. tons) in 2015. More than 60% of that increase was attributable to population growth rather than a substantial rise in the amount produced by each individual.So, yep. Later in the article:
“What we’ve found is that the increase is mainly because there are more of us."What is that other 40% of the increase due to, people gaining weight?
They combined these findings with worldwide population and body weight data to calculate how human metabolic activity changed over time.Looks like it.
Professor Javier Gonzalez, who led the research at the University of Bath’s Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Metabolism, explained:Up till now, any Exercise Science Professor could have done this on the back of an envelope, before we went paperless, at least. They like to measure CO2 output of people walking and running on treadmills and that sort of thing. One of said Professors could, if he had to, add it up, by multiplying measurements by the number of people in the world. Did none of them ever get around to that? Does it matter? No, because:
“We all produce carbon dioxide simply by turning food into energy, but until now we haven’t had a good idea how much that adds up to worldwide.
Why Human Breathing Is Not Driving Climate ChangeYeah, because the people are really not going to put up with being told to watch their breathing and lose a few pounds to save The Planet. Cow farts? SUVs? Yeah, sure.
The researchers emphasize that their findings do not suggest people should exercise less, change their diets, or attempt to reduce the carbon dioxide they breathe out. The purpose is to improve scientific measurements of carbon movement, not identify respiration as a contributor to fossil fuel emissions.
Gonzalez stressed the distinction: “The important thing is that the carbon dioxide we breathe out is not the same as burning fossil fuels. We’re not saying that breathing is driving climate change.
“What this study does is give us a much clearer picture of how much CO2 people produce around the world, and how that is changing as the population grows.By doing one multiplication.
This understanding can help improve the accuracy predictions of carbon reduction programs.”What does he mean? Knowing how to multiply can help build better climate models? Well, he's not wrong, but ...
They wrote a paper, Accounting for global carbon dioxide production from human metabolism between 1985 and 2015: a modelling study, published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal this past October 26th. They are:
Javier T Gonzalez, Lorenzo Lolli, Bruno Spellanzon, Greg Atkinson, Ed Maunder, Alfonso Moreno-Cabañas, Jariya Buniam, Dylan Thompson, James Betts, Philip N Ainslie, Heliodoro Alemán-Mateo, Linda Bandini, Ellen E Blaak, Carlijn V C Bouten, Pascal Bovet, Soren Brage, Regina Casper, Prasangi Dabare, Barry W Fudge, Melanie Gillingham, Annalies H Goris, Michael Gurven, Hinke Haisma, Marije B Hoos, Noorjehan Joonas, Peter Katzmarzyk, Misaka Kimura, Sai Krupa Das, Pulani Lanerolle, Christel L Larsson, Marie Löf, Aviva Must, Marian Neuhouser, Theresa A Nicklas, Robert M Ojiambo, Kirsi H Pietilainen, Susan B Racette, Eric Ravussin, Leanne M Redman, John J Reilly, Susan Roberts, Luis B Sardinha, Analiza M Silva, Srishti Sinha, Anders M Sjödin, Eric Stice, Samuel S Urlacher, Edgar A Van Mil, Jeanine A Verbunt, Jonathan C K Wells, Tsukasa Yoshida, Xueying Zhang, Alexia Murphy-Alford, Cornelia U Loechl, Amy Luke, Michele Novaes Ravelli, Herman Pontzer, Jennifer Rood, Hiroyuki Sagayama, Dale A Schoeller, Klaas R Westerterp, William W Wong, Yosuke Yamada and John Speakman.
I'm not kidding. It took 63 authors. They are all getting credit for co-authoring this paper on multiplication. No... that ain't workin'. That's the way you do it... maybe get a blister on your little finger, maybe get a blister on your thumb.
Comments:
Hail
Thursday - November 5th 2026 2:42AM MST
PS
Those names have a suspiciously high number that sound like joke-names:
- Lorenzo Lolli (lollipop)
- Bruno Spellanzon (spelling zone, oops misspelled it)
- Soren Brage (not to brag...)
- Barry W Fudge
- Marije B Hoos
- Susan B Racette
- Leanne M Redman
- Jeanine A Verbunt
- Jennifer Rood
- John Speakman
Those names have a suspiciously high number that sound like joke-names:
- Lorenzo Lolli (lollipop)
- Bruno Spellanzon (spelling zone, oops misspelled it)
- Soren Brage (not to brag...)
- Barry W Fudge
- Marije B Hoos
- Susan B Racette
- Leanne M Redman
- Jeanine A Verbunt
- Jennifer Rood
- John Speakman
Hail
Thursday - November 5th 2026 12:33AM MST
PS
I wrote in with some election comments on the previous,
"Elections: Gateway Pundit with stunning prediction"
PS-No.3647
I wrote in with some election comments on the previous,
"Elections: Gateway Pundit with stunning prediction"
PS-No.3647
I read your comments under the previous post, Mr. Hail. I'll reply to them shortly.
When I saw your 2nd comment here, I thought for sure that I'd be "pawned" or "owned" or whatever the kids would say about 10 years ago. I went to check, bt this Javier Gonzalez of Bath (does that sound weird?) is a real guy working at that University as an Exercise Science type. I guess the Climate Calamity nonsense is not completely over*, and this guy wanted to dip a foot in the water and get some of that Calamity Cash.
... along with those 62 others. The names sure are a hodgepodge but I don't think they're silly enough to be made up. I could do much better! I think now that these "co-authors", and this is the way it DOES work a lot, Mr. Hail, were people in Javier's department that ran on the treadmills during the legit CO2 measurement work.
I guess you'd get a wide range of body types, sexes - well, the two - and whatever, but, this is absolutely nothing new! They just multiplied by people in the world, weighted by, well, weight, and got the one number. How ridiculously easy, but it's in a journal, not the SciTech one, but the "Lancelet Planetary Health". The name Lancelet is well-known, probably a joke by now, and one Steve Sailer has gotten material from, as I recall.
* It may very well start back up in earnest, as an excuse for some of the recently elected Communists to take over. (By some point, no, they won't need an excuse.)