(There are also efforts by true believers to justify the code. Try following the logic of the post in that last link.)
So, I'm a climate change 'true believer' am I? You mean because I blogged something that doesn't agree with your interpretation of the facts I must be from the other side?
Well, guess what. I don't believe in this bipolar world of yours where you're with us or against us, pro-choice or pro-life, or, frankly, any of the other ridiculous black or white notions beloved of people who get involved in politics (of any kind).
If I was a 'true believer', pray tell, why I would have analyzed raw data from the Met Office and found an error in it, or gone on TV in the UK and criticized the quality of code taken from CRU, blogged about all the errors in it?
My take on global warming is... unless you can demonstrate to me that it's false I'm going to believe the scientists who've been working on it. Pretty much the same way I do about any other bit of science. That's how science works, unlike politics.