The recent incident where a top global warming alarmists admitted to identity theft and wire fraud (and soon will most likely be found guilty of creating a fraudulent documents) is the latest in a chain of false information and outright lies promulgated by the debunked Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (C-AGW) community (e.g., the United Nations IPCC, the United Kingdom’s CRU, the United States EPA, etc). Note we now have to add a “C” to AGW since the fact the world warms and cools is now not such a novelty anymore.

The chain of falsehoods began with the infamous Hockey Stick graph produced by the CRU for IPCC. That graph contained numerous lies. Firstly it used poor statistics (one would have to call it statistical chicanery if done with forethought instead of by the ignorance of a zealot) to remove the measured climate variability that has been detected since the Roman Warm period. This ‘trick’ erased the climate changges seen through the Little Ice Age and into the current warm period.

Let me be clear here, Mann’s flat historic temperature record is not true. That was proven by professional statisticians many times over.

But the Hickey Stick Graph not only flattened historic climate change, it also hid critical problems with the temperature proxies used to develop Mann’s reconstruction. You will note in figure 1 above that the blue reconstructed data of the hockey stick handle is appended with a bright red blade rising up dramatically. That red blade of completely different data was added to ‘hide the decline’ – a now infamous euphemism for the fact the tree rings in the modern period started to diverge from the hypothesized recent warming. If that graph was honest and complete, the blue handle would have turned downward dramatically – not upward.

Mann deleted this key data from the results – an inconvenient truth he hid from the public and policy makers. Instead he slapped on some other estimates from questionable ground temp measurements to create the myth that we are experiencing historic warming. This is completely unethical, and in my area of expertise (space exploration) a firing offense – if not worse.

We of course are not experiencing never before seen warming. As can be seen in Figure 2 and numerous studies, today is not warmer than the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods. Therefore humanity’s increased industrial activity can only have a minor effect on the overall global climate – if at all. It is still up to the zealots of C-AGW to prove human produced CO2 is the driver, and CO2 increases are the cause (not the result as many studies show) of a warming global climate.

The next suite of crimes against science, ethics and the truth came when someone at the CRU blew the whistle and made public a series of emails and data that had been collected at CRU in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Now many people will claim I have no proof that the source of the email dumps was (a) associated with CRU or (b) from the FOIA pool of information gathered by CRU at the time. But the fact is that is the only logical answer (see here). And given how the recent Gleick Fakegate incident has played out versus the CRU Climategate, it is now clear the reason there is no legal action being taken by CRU is because they know the source and legally cannot touch them.

In the CRU emails we learned of more than just fudging data. We learned of professional oppression, coercion and even extortion to censor opposing scientific results and views. The CRU Hockey Team was caught red handed working a conspiracy (very close to a RICO criminal act) to silence or professionally destroy those who not only doubted their claims, but who challenged their claims and were exposing their lies and omissions.

And then there was the cover up – which probably pushed the VRU whistle blower to expose the emails in the end. When reading the emails one finds CRU scientists willing to do anything to cover up their mistakes and avoid FOIA requests. See here for a forensic analysis of Phil Jones’ emails over time and how he dealt with his legal responsibilities.

The next step towards the dark side by they Warmists was in fact the 4th IPCC report itself. Due partially to a lack of new evidence to support C-AGW, but also in the face of mounting contrary evidence, the IPCC propaganda machine went full-throttle Chicken-Little in 2007. In their haste to yell ‘fire’ on this crowded planet, the IPCC 2007 report was riddled with exaggerations without any scientific foundation. The most infamous claim was how 80% of the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035.

So now we reach 2012 with one Peter Gleick committing a series of crimes in order to create a propaganda event against an institute that simply is not buying the C-AGW BS. Thankfully for the entirety of scientific endeavors, and those who seek truth in a professional manner, the episode has not just backfired but exposed the rot at the core of C-AGW. Those C-AGW proponents who made up pathetic excuses for Gleick’s crimes have done more to undermine the credibility of C-AGW than 1,000 reasonable scientific papers of contrary results. The science may be hard to grasp, but the ethics (or lack of therein) are simple.

So why the panic moves by Gleick and his fellow travelers? Why do they once more fall into the gutter?

I believe the escalating corruption inside the C-AGW community (from fudging their own data, to censoring contrary data, to violating FOIA laws, to open fraud and theft) is because the C-AGW hypothesis is running out of time. These zealots were so over confident because of the holiness of their quest they overstated their confidence and then their conclusions. Now all that arrogance and ignorance is coming home to roost.

A few interesting reports out in the last 2 weeks illustrate what I mean. First off, the real world data is now statistically so far off from the IPCC theories that each passing year is another data set proving the hypothesis of C-AGW to be completely wrong:

Abstract: Global temperatures measured since 2005 are incompatible with the IPCC model predictions made in 2007 by WG1 in AR4. All subsequent temperature data from 2006 to 2011 lies between 1 and 6 standard deviations below the model predictions. The data show with > 90% confidence level that the models have over-exaggerated global warming.

Here is another important report in the same vain:

We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.

The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.

The data does not lie, neither does the math. You can take ALL of the prior IPCC predictions – based on their flawed hypothesis – and see the same result. There models and predictions are wrong with higher confidence levels than ever claimed for C-AGW and the human CO2 component.

Finally, the evidence continues to mount showing global climate driven primarily by solar output, and that the current reduction in solar activity is indicating a cooler global climate for the next few decades. This solar based theory is 1000 times more compelling than C-AGW.

The reality check is happening now, and the C-AGW hypothesis is crashing and burning. For its desperate clingers-on it is clearly time to pull out all the stops – especially the ethical ones. At least that is what they believe.

The truth is the overly dramatic (or over-egged for our UK friends) claims of C-AGW were lost years ago. Lost to bad math and hidden data, lost to unethical decisions, lost to a lack of a true scientific method and lost to a lack of professionalism. You can’t undo years down the wrong path with a stupid propaganda stunt. But by the number of Gleick defenders coming out of from under their rocks, it is clear we are not done with that kind of nonsense. (Update: Noticed this link at WUWT discussing the excuse-mongering from the green left).

The C-AGW proponents rang the alarm bells, and the broader community of scientists and engineers answered. The problem for C-AGW proponents – the answer was the IPCC got it wrong.

For those looking for insight into how science progresses, I suggest you read the following – which is playing out right now:

Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the “map” directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science.

It is hard for the zealots of C-AGW to realize this, but they are not leading this current round of revolutionary global-scale science. They were simply the catalyst of failures in conventional thinking (discovered anomalies) that initiated the revolutionary thinking. And now their C-AWG hypotheses are being replaced with new, better scientific theories.