Steven,
The trouble with your “we are still stuck with some basic facts” is it seems to leave us open to the proposition that it is prudent to take precautions –just in case. Which has a folksy, common sense appeal.

Except, in the case in point, some of the precautions proposed are no simple measures and have outcomes as bad as the outcomes they seek to ward off.

The precautions include --at their core -- a major redistribution of industry & wealth .Which is less like some folksy herbal remedy and much more like cutting a vein and bleeding the patient treatment.

And there is a growing tendency to misrepresent all unfavourable outcomes as symptoms of AGW, and exempt the real causes-which are likely to be:
–Over population
--Poor siting of settlements
--Poor agricultural practices
--Over fishing
--Poor governance
If we were to bring industry produced CO2 down to zero tomorrow, those other afflictions would still be there--festering away.

No Steven, these blokes are way deeper than any of the corporates have ever got to.

The corporates just want a bit of your money. For them to succeed long term they need you, to not only survive, but actually prosper.

This lot of the "scientists" have been prepared to destroy our whole way of life for god knows what. Not try to improve anything, just destroy.

I suppose their best chance of avoiding suitable punishment is the scale of the fraud. So many people look so stupid, & our pollies are even still perpetuating the stupidity today.

Will it ever stop?

Ye of black and white disposition,
There is a new report out tomorrow that doesn't involve the people in the this storm in a tea cup (?) it doesn't paint a good picture about AGW. Apparently things are worse the the worst scenarios put up in the IPCC report.

Steven,
I read that on the web site .....so what.
Like I said to prove anything these emails need to correlated to specific written and publish papers. Then matched with those papers cited in the IPCC report to show they they ACTUALLY affected anything other than the scientist's personal credibility.

In reality while a number of deniers are salivating over this I doubt that in the shake out it will have any scientific impact on the bulk of the science measurements etc that indicate AGW is real.
The key data isn't subject to destruction by a cantankerous prof.
Too many institutions involved check out the evolving readings from the satellites like CMOS, Jason2 etc.

It's looking, at the moment, like a storm in an academic dirty coffee mug.

Steven
for a full contextual argument of the hack emails they cover a 13 year period.

Read this site to see the context http://www.realclimate.org/ There is a very detailed explanation.
Before getting to excited read this and see why it doesn't phase me.

Runner

<< Quote of the year comes from Mr Monibat (sic) 'I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.' >>

Whoever you've got this from has cherry-picked from the comments section and conveniently ignored the preceding article, in which George Monbiot states -

"But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here. >>

He then goes on to produce a piece of satire and concludes by stating "The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientist

No, Runner, I wouldn't quote George Monbiot in future if I was you. He's admitted to feeling some disappointment in a very small number of scientists, that's all. He's hardly joined the ranks of the born-again skeptics. The fact he's linked to another article describing the leaked emails as an "orchestrated smear campaign" is a fair indicator he's not the pin-up boy you think he is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/nov/23/leaked-email-climate-change

What disappoints me is that those that believe in AGW are so set in
their beliefs they are not concerned about the emails.
Ever since I had an understanding what AGW was about the Climate
Research group has been accepted and promoted as the best temperature
centre and was considered pre-eminent in their field.

Now suddenly they are just another group and not that important.
Surely the very least that should happen is an enquiry into their
climate temperature work.
Much other work appears to have been based on their findings.
The scientific community owes it to the rest of us to not just
assume that their work is valid but to prove it to us.