San Jose State University Meteorology decides burning books they don't agree with is better than reading them

Did they burn this report written by the EPA’s own technical analysis? It appears they are not aware of the observations and analysis that supports the ‘skeptics’. It appears they are trying a bait and switch tactic to distract the public from this obvious problem with the extreme AGW theory.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
“I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.”
“2.9 The Missing Heating in the Tropical Troposphere
Computer models based on the theory of GHG/CO2 warming predict that the troposphere in the tropics should warm faster than the surface in response to increasing CO2 concentrations, because that is where the CO2 greenhouse effect operates. Sun-Cosmic ray warming will warm the troposphere more uniformly.
The UN’s IPCC AR4 report includes a set of plots of computer model predicted rate of temperature change from the surface to 30 km altitude and over all latitudes for 5 types of climate forcings as shown below.
The Hadley Centre’s real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below, however, does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that most of the global temperature change cannot be attributed to increasing CO2 concentrations.”
Did they try to ban the publication of this paper that notes the tropical tropospheric warming a key prediction and a necessary condition (the tropical surface region warming is from long wave radiation from the tropical tropospheric) of the extreme AGW theory is 300% less than what is predicted?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
“ A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.”
Did they try to burn or ban the publication of this paper that findings again that rather than amplify CO2 forcing planetary clouds in the tropics increases or decreases to reflect more or less energy off into space (negative feedback as opposed to amplification). Based on this top of the atmosphere radiation analysis vs ocean temperature changes the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming. The 1.5C to 5C warming predicted by the IPCC general circulation models requires amplification not
http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … … We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. …”
I must admit that I am not laughing at policies that will turn Western countries into third world countries. I would highly recommend reading Christopher Booker “The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with “Climate Change” Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?’.
I just finished reading the Oxford professor, Dieter Helm’s “The Carbon Crunch: How we’re getting Climate Change Wrong – and How to fix it”
Helm states that the warming could be from any where from 1C to 5C. No discussion of the observations that support the 1C.
What he acknowledge is that the billions upon billions of dollars spent by the EU on ‘green’ scams such as the construction of wind farms in Germany in regions where the wind does not blow. (21.7% average). As the wind blows when power is not required and large highly efficient combine cycle power plants (efficiency 60%) that cannot be turned on and off , must be replaced with single cycle plants (efficiency 40%) that can be turned on and off. If one includes the CO2 to construct the wind farm, to transport power from the wind farm and to step up the wind farm power and match it the electric grid and the reduction in efficiency of the other grid power plants there is almost no CO2 reduction.
With a real power factor of 21.7% a 1000 of the largest wind turbines are required to replace a single coal generating plant. In addition, there must be 100% backup single cycle natural gas power plants to back up the 1000 turbines. (Sound expensive, inefficient? Perhaps that is the reason why cost of electrical power in Germany is twice that of the US.) As the EU bans fracking and there is a shortage of local natural gas in the EU, the Germans are hence constructing coal plants as imported coal is cheaper than imported natural gas.
As Helm notes if one includes the carbon dioxide required to produce the goods and materials the EU purchases from Asia and the US there has been no net reduction in CO2 emissions in the EU. The local reduction is due to the fact the goods and materials are no longer manufactured or produced in the EU.
Helm notes the most of the EU plans to shutdown their nuclear power plants as the ‘green’ movement is fanatically anti nuclear.
Helm hints at the fact that there is no possibility of any real reduction in CO2 emissions without a massive increase in nuclear power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22372088
Trillion-euro shortfall facing EU energy sector – Lords Committee
Investment totalling a trillion euros (£846bn) is required before the end of this decade if the European Union is to stave off an energy crisis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20002801
Coal consumption in Europe, where governments have been at the forefront of the push to curb carbon dioxide emissions, has risen sharply in recent years.
Why? Because it’s cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. Due to the economic downturn, there has been what Paul McConnell, senior analyst at energy research group Wood Mackenzie, calls a “collapse in industrial demand for energy”. This has led to an oversupply of coal, pushing the price down.
In fact, coal was the fastest growing form of energy in the world outside renewables last year, with production up 6% on 2010, twice the rate of increase of gas and more than four times that of oil. Consumption data paints a similar picture, while figures for this year are set to tell the same story.

Tom Curtis says:
“Bridger and Clements….. in inflammatory way …..consider…… book burning.”
Is there any other way?

Burning books? Sheesh! Haven’t they heard of the internet?

Kasuha says:
May 2, 2013 at 12:35 pm
“The photo does not show them actually burning the book, it’s still intact on the photo. And personally I don’t believe they actually burned it, they do not seem to have appropriate tools ready.”
Wow, you spotted it was really just a joke, which of course it was, one of those “aren’t we superior in showing you how we feel about people who disagree with us”. No way were they going to burn it over their office desk, maybe later in the playground, but that isn’t the point, it is the symbolism.
You also say “The Heartland Institution isn’t a scientific body”. What has that got to do with the price of bread this Friday morning?

“Golden says:
May 2, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Doesn’t burning things cause global warming? Apparently they don’t think we have enough”
Don’t be silly. Of course we have enough books. New bookshops are opening weekly, if not daily, and established bookshops are still extant, this proves the hypothesis that books are a renewable resource and therefore carbon neutral. 😉