Obviously you didn't take the time to read the realclimate.org post. They cite evidence in their refutations, show that most of the claims are taken out of context, and explain certain terms and phrases that can be considered jargon for their community.
In response to the readme file. Yes, the coding is bad. They aren't fudging the data though.
Don't pick your research area based on profitability or popularity. There are always "hot" areas of research but these things are usually cyclic. Pick something interesting that excites you, and that you can spend the next 4 (or 5 or 6 or 7) years working on.