Interesting. Of course, if true, more details need to made available. That said, it should be no surprise that the Eco-fundamentalists and "green" snake oil salesmen are pulling the biggest caper in broad daylight the world has ever seen.

However, reading the summaries that these folks have posted, such as the one in this almost comically exaggerated article by Telegraph writer James Delingpole, one thing stands out — there’s no there there. There’s no evidence of a conspiracy to commit massive fraud. There are no admissions of faking data. The worst thing they’ve dug up out of thousands of emails is this one referring to a “trick” used to adjust warming data, which Delingpole dramatically labels “Manipulation of evidence:”

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

“Trick,” of course, can also mean “an effective technique,” but if you were desperately hunting for anything smear-worthy, I suppose the word would stand out.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35184_Global_Warming_Nontroversy_of_the_Day

Seems to like somebody hacked into an email account. That sort of thing should be illegal.

or somebody just made it completely up

would you believe a hacker who posts some emails of sceptics in which they confess that they only deny AGW for their lobby interests? I doubt so , so why should you believe those emails except for the comfortable reason that they fit with your opinions.

Considering the fact that CRU has admitted that their email system was hacked the possiblitiy that these are authetic are high. Also there are some mundane emails there as well.

You also make it seem like this is the only potential evidence that global warming is not due to humans.  There is enough research out there to show this as well.  This just could be the shot that sinks the ship (a la 'I sank your battleship')

Final thing, I have been stating that their, CRU, original numbers were never allowed to be peer-viewed or at least one that was independant.

As the other poster said, they have confirmed much of this.  There is also evidence that they hid e-mails from Freedom of Information Act requests. 

What's even more sad is how the media is not covering this.  Amazing.

They can't expose the subterfuge they helped create.

Not true! One of the e-mails states they will destroy the records rather than allow peer review. Another states that figures have been altered to reach the proper conclusion. It is a game to fool people. why they did this I don't know but I do know the data is not correct as stated in some of my articles last year.

Man made climate change is a hoax that has been going on since the 1970's

What I and most other reasonable people believe is that there is no doubt that global warming is occurring and that man's activity is in at least some part responsible for it. In other words AGW is a real and present danger.

On the other hand I also believe it's perfectly reasonable to argue about what the magnitude of the effect of AGW will be, how quickly that effect will occur and what, if anything, we can realistically do about it. If opponents of AGW limited themselves to these kinds arguments instead of putting their heads in the sand and simply denying that AGW even exists then perhaps their criticisms would be treated as credible instead of the insane mutterings of some lunatic fringe.

Virtually every time I see some article denying AGW it's authored by someone with absolutely no credentials in the field with a demonstrable connection to some kind of "think tank" funded by Exxon Mobil and/or Koch Industries. Even in the off chance the denier in question does have some applicable credentials then there's still the connection to the same vested interests. And while you may actually be able to find a denier with both credentials in the field and no obvious financial connection to the oil industry they are as rare as hen's teeth and in all likelihood their financial connection to the oil industry simply hasn't been uncovered *yet*.

As to how this *is* being covered in a reasonable manner here's just a *few* links.

I Read Through 160,000,000 Bytes of Hacked Files And All I Got Was This Lousy E-Mail

ANALYSIS-Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer

Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute

Varying Concerns About Climate Files

Your Dot: On Science and ‘Cyber-Terrorism’

Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

Science historian reacts to hacked climate e-mails

Climate scientist criticizes skeptics, press

Do Leaked Emails Undermine the Scientific Consensus?

An Interesting Gripe

The real scandal in the hacked climate change e-mails controversy

Purloined CRU e-mails on climate science: One scientist pleads for accuracy

Smoking guns in the CRU stolen e-mails: A real tale of real ethics in science

Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate

Here’s what we know so far

Let’s look at one of the illegally hacked emails in more detail

Climate Scientists’ E-mails Hacked, Posted; So What Does it All Mean for the Climate?

The CRU hack

The CRU hack: Context

Asshole here.

Making anyone who disagrees with you by definition unreasonable.  How nice.

And the AGW proponents are entirely untainted, entirely pure and academically without reproach.  Right.

A terrific high-altitude perspective on this controversy.  Highly recommended reading.

Terrific highly recommended reading from some nobody, from nowhere, that knows nothing.

In reality, it doesn't matter what any one puts here.  Even, if G-D Himself stated something here that goes against what you believe you'd just say well HE's just saying that because HE's backed by the oil company.

Especially, with the paragraph that was quoted.  You have an attitude that all (which is already a fallacy) nay-sayers that are respectable in a respected fields are getting backed by oil.  With your very own agrument someone could say that is true AGW.

With your attitude it is very unscientific in the sense where the case is closed.  When the case is never closed there is always room for exploration and experimentation.

Since when did most mean all?

OK.  Most unreasonable people don't believe?

And this is strong, I guess: 'I and most other reasonable people believe...'

Substantive.  Very substantive.