Your point is grossly biased. You are equating the handful of people whose communications were included in the leak with the authors of (according to the articl

Your point is grossly biased. You are equating the handful of people whose communications were included in the leak with the authors of (according to the article) at least 900 (papers that support the "consensus". Given that the IPCC AR4 WG1 report that talks about the scientific basis for climate change is based on of order 1000 citations for each of the 10 chapters, I think you are significantly underestimating the body of science underlying the conclusions of the IPCC report. To think that one research group could significantly bias this, you must think they are powerful indeed. You are also equating them talking about doing something with it actually happening. People talk about doing stuff all the time, so unless you can show evidence that a) they actually tried to act on their statements and b) were in a position to exclude papers from the body of scientific literature, I find no reason to think that the body of published studies is systematically biased. Furthermore, the statements can also be interpreted as attempting (perhaps overzealously) to exclude shoddy science, not furthering a personal vendetta.