Of course, like models, all analogies are wrong but some are useful! I think this hits the nail on the head in terms of CRU's perspective but I grant you it does not describe well any of the probable things that might be in the heads of the Climate Audit crowd. Undoubtably, some are sincere crusaders.
I really do prefer to take people at face value, but some impressive bit of researching over at Deep Climate kinda makes it hard to believe in the whole "gee, we're just asking" schtick Steve McIntyre puts out to the general public.
Check out the very substantial Part 1: In the beginning and the perhaps more damning Part 2: the Barton investigation and the Wegman panel.
And don't anyone forget: we have seen it all before!
Since when is reading a blog and using google "impressive research"? All I saw was common knowledge, scare quotes, ad hominems, and guilt by association (the coordinator of the government investigation was a REPUBLICAN! Ooooooh, scary!)
I also liked the bit in part 2 where the author was dismissive of how M&M questioned subreports and wanted Mann's code since we now know some references were shoddy and the code is broken.
How do you know that? And can you be more specific?
Skeptics rarely provide specifics or cite references, but there's always plenty of innuendo, hand waving and "known facts." :P