I wasn't trying to convince you that it was part of such a campaign. Rather I was wondering which particular details swayed you, as a presumably impartial observer, to believe one side of the story rather than the other.
But since you ask, the main reason I feel like its part of a campaign is because the recently released emails have confirmed that there was indeed such a campaign. Before knowing that (which I think is a solid fact at this point) I probably would have thought that "intense media campaign" was too conspiratorial to be likely.
Separately, while I don't know the Guardian author's history and experience, I feel like the vehemence of her language and the viciousness of the chosen quotes is greater than that normally shown in a science story. Also, from previous exposure to Mann and Trenberth, I (rightly or wrongly) start with the assumption that they are more concerned with political message than presenting an unbiased scientific overview.
I liked that the first article you linked included a rebuttal from Pielke, and I found his links and counter-argument persuasive. But at this point I'm conscious of my bias toward his side of the story, and thus don't trust my assessment of this particular article. That's why I was asking you which parts you found convincing, so I could try to consider them specifically.
---
The quoting of Judith Curry in the second article you linked is interesting. In 2007 she argued against Pielke's conclusions, but since then she has swung to be one of his strongest defenders. With regard to a parallel 2014 piece at Climate Progress, she wrote:
RP Jr’s post at 538 has elicited what is probably the most reprehensible and contemptible smear job that I have ever seen of a scientist, at least from an organization that has any pretense of respectability
As a result of sticking up for Pielke (as well as for stating her own beliefs) her own reputation has been similarly damaged:
Well as recently as 5 years ago, I never thought I’d live to see the day when I am very grateful that I have tenure at a university, which provides my job with some protection against politically inconvenient scientific analyses.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconven...
(As a disclaimer, I'll say that while (like Pielke) I find Curry's writings to be accurate and scientifically trustworthy, many of the reader comments on her site strike me as underinformed right-wing politically biased trolling. If you can, try to judge her by her own writings, rather than by the comments of others.)