Mate...the clowns at realclimate are right smack bang in the centre of climate gate. So please excuse me if I dont use anything realclimate says as evidence against the case against man made global warming (tm).
Although I see another "impartial and totally unbiased" so called scientists from realclimate also HAD his sticky little fingers of global warming (tm) debate on wikipedia. One of the co-founders of RealClimate has just been barred from being an admin because of his bias...although I suspect to you this will be an irrelevance or something taken completely out of context or perhaps I should go to realclimate for the real story behind his removal from wikipedia as an admin?
So are you saying that all the commentary on RealClimate, and all the links to other sources from RealClimate, come from CRU scientists?
As for any kerfuffel over at Wikipedia, yeah, it's entirely irrelevant to the research.
If you have any actual evidence to present which shows that the entire body of climate research has been faked, and evidence that explains the current changes we're seeing with some comprehensible theory other than AGW, please present them.
But as it is, yes, you are simply casting unfounded aspersions and quibbling over trifles.
Which is par for the course when it comes to conspiracy theories. Truthers, creationists, and Holocaust deniers do it all the time, for example, because it's all that anyone can do when they're up against uncontrivertible evidence.
When and if you decide to cite evidence for anything you say, then we'll talk.
