It’s time to review the year’s happenings in the hurly-burly world of global warming. But, before we go further, readers should know that global warming has morphed again.

Dissatisfied with the earlier attempt to replace “global warming” with the ho-hummer “climate change,” Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren has relabeled it “climate disruption.” The switch better enables claims that any nasty weather event can be ascribed to driving your SUV.

The year itself will come in slightly warmer than recent norms, insignificantly different from the peak year of 1998. Advocates will crow accordingly, just as skeptics crowed over the unusually cold 2008. Both are meaningless; 2010 saw a strongly warming “El Niño” event, while 2008 had a strongly cooling “La Niña.” These are natural cycles, and the trend over the last 10 to 15 years remains flat. But get ready for loud squawks from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration about a hot year.

You will hear no such bugling from the independent satellite data groups. Why not? The satellite groups stick to the science, whereas the government agencies routinely venture into agenda-hawking, including temperature enhancing methods and “adjustments.”

NOAA and NASA are master manipulators of data to support alarmism. Indeed NASA is being sued under the Freedom of Information Act for documents underpinning its temperature data sets and its use of taxpayer-funded resources for public advocacy.

On the science front, perhaps the most interesting development was the publications by Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama’s Earth System Science Center. Using 20 years of satellite data, they independently analyzed how the Earth reacts to natural temperature fluctuations. They found that Mother Nature is much better at cooling herself than predicted by computer climate models.

These results contradict the drumbeat by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and various alarmist groups. They are consistent with the absence of warming over the last 10 to 15 years, despite continued increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

But by and large, the year was dominated by human events, not science. Some of it was dramatic.

Preeminent Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry “defected” from the dogma and became a vocal critic of the IPCC and ardent spokesperson for science accountability.

Then my friend and colleague in physics, Hal Lewis, became an instant folk hero when he issued his public letter resigning from the American Physical Society. Hal was chairman of the Defense Science Board Panel on Nuclear Winter and chaired the APS Reactor Safety Study. The letter contained scathing indictments of the bogus science and moneyed interests driving the politics. The event was hailed by skeptics, while sending advocates scurrying to muster their character assassination techniques.

In general, it has been a year of broad retreat by those pushing for worldwide government control of energy.

The retreat began with the ClimateGate scandal, which one blogger wryly likened to “discovering that professional wrestling is rigged.” For readers who missed out on the saga, Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion: ClimateGate and the Corruption of Science is a rewarding read. The failure of the U.N. Climate Conference in Copenhagen came soon afterward and was widely linked to ClimateGate revelations. This is probably exaggerated; the reluctance of developing countries such as China to commit economic suicide was another critical factor. And, despite a convocation soliciting benevolent intervention from a Mayan goddess, the recent Cancun climate séance was jolted by an unusually blunt Japanese announcement: “Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances.” No binding agreement is in sight. And to punctuate the retreat, congressional attendance at taxpayer expense was down sharply.

The IPCC itself came in for strong criticism from the international scientific elite. The InterAcademy Council, an organization of the world’s science academies, called for major reforms. Among these reforms was what amounted to a recommendation that the U.N. replace the buffoonish chairman Rajendra Pachauri, whose racy novel about the affairs of an aging climate scientist, alleged conflicts of interest and feckless defense of bizarre errors had annoyed even advocates. In typical U.N. fashion, the calls for resignation were disregarded.

Perhaps most significant was the movement by some scientific societies toward a more moderate stance on the issue. The prestigious U.K. Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific society, substantially moderated its previous alarmist position on global warming. It now enumerates the key scientific uncertainties and no longer calls for precipitous government action.

Europe continued to back away from its public commitments to reduce emissions, as huge debt and a poor economic outlook drove home the realization that it can ill afford expensive energy controls with no climate impact. Spain’s 21 percent unemployment was ascribed largely to the high cost in jobs of publicly subsidized renewable energy.

At home, the midterm elections further dimmed prospects for draconian legislation, so the administration will use executive action to increase control of energy generation and use. This may be short-lived because executive action can be reversed at the next change of the guard.

The Chicago Climate Exchange closed down for lack of interest. It was to have been the mechanism for trillions to change hands trading carbon dioxide, the by-product of breathing and feedstock of the plant world. It would have further enriched clever hedge fund managers and, yes, Al Gore.

Only errant California bucked the trend, paving the way for its accelerated economic decline and ultimate failure, which all of us will pay for – one way or another.

Finally, running ahead of its elected leaders, the American public became yet more skeptical about global warming, despite the 20-year media fear barrage. A recent Scientific American poll of its presumably scientifically literate readers found that 78 percent think climate change is caused by solar variation or natural processes, and 69 percent think we should do nothing about climate change. And according to Pew Research, among 21 social and economic issues confronting Americans, global warming ranks last in importance.

Looking at the big picture, it is now safe to say that the skeptics community has sealed the fate of the old climate dogma. The dogma still defends itself ever more shrilly, but that only serves to further isolate it and erode its credibility. Its influence is waning, and a more sober attitude seems to be emerging. What exactly will ultimately emerge is not yet perceived. We shall see.

Roger W. Cohen holds a doctorate degree in physics and worked in the electronics and energy industries. He retired from ExxonMobil in 2003 where he was manager of strategic planning, including the basic science of climate change. A fellow of the American Physical Society, he lives in Durango.