Brainwashing the Young: Climate Alarmist Lies Exposed

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

Yet another otherwise honorable cause turns itself into a vehicle for global warming propaganda to exploit the unwary. ‘Young People’s Trust for the Environment‘ (YPTE) is a registered UK charity that has swallowed wholesale junk climate science to become  ‘useful idiots’ doing the work of corrupt Big Green concerns.  Below the fake science YPTE promotes is carefully dissected and publicly exposed.

Bright-Paul writes:

Key Quotes from Young People’s Trust for the Environment

taken from:

  1. ‘The build-up of man-made gases in the atmosphere that trap the sun’s heat, causing changes in weather patterns around the world’.

  2. But greenhouse gases are not always bad. We actually need some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order for life on Earth to exist:

  3. Trees and plants would not survive without CO2 as they need it for photosynthesis. The plants in turn provide food for animals and humans and they give out oxygen for animals to breathe.

  4. This is because the greenhouse gases form a protective layer in the atmosphere that stops all the sun’s warmth disappearing back up into space. Greenhouse gases also keep the planet warm enough for life to exist.

  5. Without them the world would be 33°C colder than it is now and life would not be possible (the average temperature for November in the UK is around 6°C. This means it would be more like –27°C here instead). This is because the greenhouse gases form a protective layer in the atmosphere that stops all the sun’s warmth disappearing back up into space.


After a mild altercation over Christmas, for which I got soundly reprimanded, I was minded to look up exactly the claims for man-made Global Warming, and specifically if these claims included the words ‘trapping the Sun’s heat’ – which indeed they do as can be seen from the above.

I have not included the whole text, only those bits that I felt were germane to our discussion. I have to declare that I am not a scientist, least of all a Physicist – indeed I am a very ordinary person, friendly to persons of all races and creeds and happily married, but hugely combative when it comes to a discussion.

So now I declare, as I have already declared many times, that the discussion concerning Climate and Anthropogenic Global Warming as it is grandly called, is not just a matter for scientists, but for all those concerned with language or linguistics – how are they called? Is there such a word as a ‘semanticist’?

Let us take the word ‘time’. It is clear to anyone other than a complete numbskull, that while it is patently obvious that one needs to be on time to catch a train, yet it is equally obvious that it is impossible to catch or to trap time. Try it! Time’s winged chariot just cannot be stopped. I may stop a clock, but I cannot stop the march of time. Every instant of every day I am getting older and so are you. My wife is getting older, my son and two daughters are now no longer young, my granddaughters are at a wonderful exciting age, and my one grandson is a mere three years old, in the state of being almost entirely potential.

So while it is abundantly clear to most people that one cannot catch or trap time, although one can catch a bus on time, yet when it comes to the word heat, this clarity evaporates. One article after another, one scientist after another, declares that the Greenhouse Gases trap heat and make the Globe warmer than it would otherwise be.

But this is a complete nonsense and unfortunately shows that too many scientists have a poor understanding of semantics, or the precise meaning of words.

How it heat defined? It is defined as the ‘transfer of kinetic energy from one system to another’. It is perfectly possible to trap a mouse in a mousetrap. It is also possible to trap moles if they are digging up your lawns. One may trap a fox or a badger. It is even possible in the Amazonian forest to trap a huge Green Anaconda. Mankind has learned how to survive by trapping all sorts of animals, including wild horses. Here we see the entirely legitimate use of the word ‘trap’.

But when it comes to heat, it is another matter entirely. Returning home after a Christmas break away on the South coast, our home was freezing cold, and even with the central heating a full blast together with an oil-filled radiator in our breakfast room it took hours before we reached a comfortable temperature. Even then my wife decided to trap some boiling water in a hot water bottle. So what was trapped? Hot water was trapped within the bottle. But was the heat trapped? Never. In spite of being covered by duvets, by morning the heat had largely escaped, but the water remained intact with no unfortunate spillage.

I have a learned friend who insists that he traps heat within his greenhouse and thereby grows tomatoes. He still argues with me, but the fact remains that a greenhouse will trap air if it is super efficient. The radiation from the Sun may warm the air inside the Greenhouse, and the temperature of the air will go up. And it will continue up as long as the Sun is shining. What is trapped? The air is trapped to a degree within the Greenhouse. The air warms up, but only while heat is being generated by the radiation. Once the Sun goes down, the heat within the Greenhouse dissipates and will seek equilibrium with the temperatures outside, according to the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics.

When we understand this perfectly, we can see that heat is indeed a ‘transference’ of kinetic energy. It is as impossible to trap transference, as it is to trap time. It is perfectly possible to trap any substance, such as water or air, but it is completely impossible to trap a flowing or a flux. So we see here that there is a huge misunderstanding of semantics, and it is not just a matter of science, but also a matter of language.

Heat is always either being generated or being dissipated. When heat is generated by work done, by compression, combustion, by friction, fission, fusion, this is called the 1st law of thermodynamics. When heat dissipates by itself it does so according the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Heat is a movement between systems.

Once we realise that it is completely and utterly impossible to trap heat since it is not substantial but abstract, then it also follows that it is completely and utterly impossible for man to cause changes in weather patterns, the so-called climate change.

In Quotation 2 the writer states in a lordly way that Greenhouse Gases are not always bad, and then proceeds to show how they are absolutely essential for life on this Earth. In Quotation 3 the writer concedes the Biological facts of photosynthesis and the production of Oxygen. So I have no quarrel with either of these quotes.

But look at Quotation 4 – it is nonsensical from beginning to end. It is just gobbledegook.

This is because the greenhouse gases form a protective layer in the atmosphere that stops all the sun’s warmth disappearing back up into space.

The Greenhouse Gases in their entirety are only 1% of the atmospheric gases, a fact that is agreed by both sides. The idea that any layer of any magnitude or depth could prevent the transference of heat is just nonsense. Even if there were a huge plastic sheet or a tarpaulin or a sheet of glass up suspended in the sky, nothing whatsoever on God’s Earth can prevent the transference of kinetic energy. Unfortunately too many of us simply do not understand the English language. Heat is not a substance. If it were, it could be trapped. But since heat is not substantial it can in no way possibly be trapped.

Besides which the Sun does not send ‘warmth’ or heat through space, but radiation. Now this bit is scientific. Infrared is radiation and is not hot. Infrared, like electricity has no temperature, but when it hits the resistance of ‘mass’ heat is produced. When we sit out in the Sun we are mass and offer resistance and thus become hot or warmed. I grant that this is a hugely difficult concept for many highly intelligent people, who also have good grades in the sciences, but nevertheless it is true and can be proven. The Sun does not send heat through space, but radiation. Radiation has to encounter to mass to produce heat.

Once we get this concept under our belts, we can also better understand the Adiabatic Lapse Rate and or Standard Atmosphere, used by airline pilots. The radiation from the Sun warms the surfaces of the Earth, primarily the oceans, the lakes, the rivers, then the sands, the soils, the rocks, the grasslands and the canopies of forests. The warmth that is engendered by this radiation then warms the air above by conduction.

Hold on a minute! What about the long wave radiation from the surface of the Earth? The answer is blindingly simple. We already know that Oxygen and Nitrogen compose 99% of the Earth’s atmosphere and are transparent to radiation, but on the other hand are susceptible to Conduction. So 99% is warmed by Conduction and just 1% of the Greenhouse Gases are warmed by radiation. It is this ratio that the Warmists either conveniently forget or are ignorant of.

Furthermore it is clear that the atmosphere is warmed from the bottom upwards. The atmosphere does not warm the Earth, – the radiation from the Sun does that – but the atmosphere cools the Earth, firstly by Convection and finally by Radiation.

The BBC in the UK are very much an organ for the dissemination of Warmist ideas, for which reason they trumpet the fact that the air temperature in the Arctic is some 20ºC warmer than usual. What picture does this give to the casual reader, who is not inclined to delve too deeply? 20 degrees Celsius in England is a veritable summer’s day, when people flock to the seaside. But what is the truth of the matter? The more normal temperature in the Arctic is minus 30ºC, so 20ºC less cold is still a shivering minus 10ºC.

Temperatures at the North Pole could reach freezing point, claimed the BBC on Saturday.

In reality temperatures never got higher than about minus 10C. While this was still less cold than usual, it was due to an incursion of milder air (i.e. wind) from the Atlantic across a very narrow front.  Most of the Arctic was around average at between minus 30C and 40C.

In the course of this discussion I was asked somewhat pointedly if I knew what an average was – or is.  It was asked in such a way as to imply that this stupid old fool of an uneducated and unschooled old feller could hardly understand the meaning of ‘average’. To which I replied, Well, yes I did understand what an average was. I did not have the wit at the time to say that I also understood very well what an average was not.  Nor did I have the whit and the speed to ask, ‘Do you know the meaning of the word ‘anomaly’? Ahh!

Well, here is the answer: – An anomaly is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.

With a little research it is quite easy to find that not only are the averages, upon which Global Temperatures are based, open to question, but also they are based on anomalies.  They are based on quirks, freaks, aberrations, inconsistencies and incongruities.  Yes I do know indeed what is an average, and I do also know and recognise a freak and an aberration.

To be fair, the units like the CRU and NASA do not hide the fact that their calculations are based on anomalies and not on true averages at all. And can you wonder? Just what is being averaged? The temperature at a few stations 5ft off the ground, when the atmosphere is 3-dimensional, reckoned to be 100 kilometres high to the edge of space, or over 60 miles thick?  So there is no pretence that these august scientific institutions are measuring reality, but only a few chosen morsels to support a view of man-made Global Warming to which they are committed in advance.

The idea that the Greenhouse Gases form a protective layer in the atmosphere preventing the Sun’s warmth returning to Outer Space shows an incredible ignorance of Gas Laws. I was reminded in my discussion that gases are at their most dense at ground level. As a gas is warmed the gas will escape from a virtual box and the molecules will separate and fly apart. The further these molecules fly up into the atmosphere, the greater the distance between the molecules. The question that bothered me some time ago was this. What is between the molecules? I had to ring one of my scientist friends to be assured that there is NOTHING between the molecules.

He then sent me some calculations based on Avogadro’s law. So what is clear? At ground level the molecules are most dense and as they rise up they separate. In fact the amount of NOTHING increases exponentially, until in the Thermosphere at the edge of space it is almost all NOTHING or vacuum, even though it may contain some extremely hot molecules.

Put in layman’s language the atmosphere is riddled with holes – it is the very opposite of a protective layer. Nothing whatsoever can prevent the heat of the Earth being finally radiated to Outer Space.

Far from the Greenhouse gases forming a protective layer, – as Hans Schreuder asserts in his paper ‘Greenhouse Gases cool the earth’ – they scatter the incoming infrared from the Sun, which is infinitely stronger than the infrared from the Earth. There is no solid Greenhouse in the sky and the idea that Man can in any way regulate the temperature of the Earth is a giant fiction – nay an impossibility!

Without them the world would be 33°C colder than it is now and life would not be possible.

Here above is the final quote No 5. Nobody even pretends that the Greenhouse gases generate heat. It is moreover patently obvious that with a minimum knowledge of Gas Laws there is no possibility that these Greenhouse Gases could form a protective layer. All that we can observe is that the presence of Water Vapour in the atmosphere slows down the exit of heat – that is all. In no way do the Greenhouse Gases make anything warmer. This giant scam has run its full course. Now is the time for it to be repudiated in full.

There is a simple primal law – one can only heat something, but one cannot heat nothing!

Comments (2)

  • Avatar



    “Far from the Greenhouse gases forming a protective layer,……. they scatter the incoming infrared from the Sun, which is infinitely stronger than the infrared from the Earth”. Are you sure this is correct? My understanding is that CO2 is only able to react with certain specific wavelengths of the infra-red spectrum and these do not include the short-wave radiation emitted by the sun.

    • Avatar



      You have been duped by the term “shortwave radiation” from the Sun.

      CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation at wavelength bands centred around ~2.7, ~4.3 and ~15 microns. Outside of these wavelengths CO2 is almost 100% transparent.

      This is established fact.

      If you plot a Planck curve for the solar radiation scaled by the inverse square law and plot a curve for a temperature of 30° C you will find that at 2.7 microns the solar radiation has significantly higher emissions than that emitted by a surface at 30° C and the number of photons is thousands of times greater. At 4.3 microns the solar radiation is till slightly higher than that emitted by a surface at 30° C. Beyond 4.5 microns the solar radiation drops below that emitted by a surface at 30° C.

      CO2 absorbs in the ~2.7 and 4.3 micron range and hence absorbs incoming solar IR.

      That is only part of the story.

      Shorter wavelength “photons” contain significantly more energy than longer wavelength “photons”.

      E = h.c/lambda – h is Planck’s constant, c is speed of light and lambda is wavelength.

      Smaller denominator equals larger result.

      Common values for the solar radiation have ~8-9% UV, ~46-47% visible and ~45% infra-red.

      Discounting the higher energy wavelengths directly absorbed by the atmosphere is misleading.

Comments are closed