If you have a better idea of how to go about believing in something, I'm eager to hear it.

Here's a few methods that I know don't work:

1) Believe based on the evidence and arguments you hear. Sounds reasonable, right? Unfortunately, for any field of sufficient complexity, laymen like us don't have the ability to evaluate the evidence and arguments in context, because we are too ignorant. I don't care if this has been your hobby for a few years, or that you are a brilliant person. Unless you actually have a degree in this stuff, you aren't going to be a great judge of arguments.

2) Believe based on a particular expert. But when there are many experts, there is no reason to believe in any particular one.

3) Believe based on the personalities involved. Don't trust Al Gore? Logically, it shouldn't make a difference, since many more people are involved beside Al Gore.

So, please tell me the method you use to believe, that is better than scientific consensus.

Your comment only makes sense if you don't believe in science.

I didn't point you to that site to show you that there's support out there for Mann, but to give info about the controversies in question.

Your point about not listening to a person defending themselves is not logical. Of course you want to listen to the person defending themselves. How else would you discover the truth of any particular argument? But the fact that they attempt rebut an argument against them is not so surprising, as you point out. The interesting part is how they do it. Is it with facts? With threatening lawsuits? With wild allegations?

I find the argument coherent and fact-based.

Also, I find it not likely that Mann is alone defending himself here. RealClimate is more than just Mann, so you shouldn't be concerned that it's just Mann defending his reputation, without other scientists agreeing with him.

Well, it's run by scientists who know more than any of us, which is why it is useful to link to them.

There are also scientists who know more than any of us that oppose global warming, but there are much fewer of them. Therefore, it seems clear that we should believe the majority, since we ourselves are not experts. Linking to some of those experts is the correct thing to do here.

Can you explain how having your email leaked makes you an unreliable source? I'm not getting it.

Most of your assertions have been debunked a long time ago. To take just one example:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

And, from working in academia as a programmer, I can tell you that the quality of engineering is in general low, because most of the time you don't have professional software engineers working on the product. Unfortunate, but there's not enough money for anything more than an RA, which are often inexperienced.

Your post above is an excellent example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.