You can actually read the entire email there though... it's not taken out of context... unless you can come up with a good reason why somone would need to "hide" something.

"the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear."

It doesn't look to me like they were really hiding anything, if this explanation is correct. Maybe "hide" was a poor choice of words?

I'm not really sure, it's a bit confusing. But one thing which I do know is that someone should go through these mails and really read them in context before we all start jumping to conclusions.

If it is true that they were deceiving people by manipulating data, I'm all for throwing them to the wolves.

Using hide for correct would be like using the term steal for bought.

I can't see how one would use such a term. 

There is some interesting stuff from the small bit i've read.

For example someone who testified to the congress about climate change in the rockies saying his research was never meant to be "realistic" but internally cosnistant (or so he thought) "What if-storylines".

The emails in general are pretty interesting to read though... but i am a bit of a science nerd.

Depends, if they were hiding something which was misleading, it may be OK to hide it or to add some clarification to it. If they were doing the opposite, it's not OK.

Since the "trick" was to "add in the real temps to each series", I don't see how that could really hide anything. But this is of course all based on my superficial reading of a single quote.

Maybe I'll read the emails later, it should be interesting. Not really in the mood right now.

I am still amazed at the fact that no one seems to realize , someone hacked into a computer stole all the emails and published them online, That's scarier to me.

Why?  That kind of thing happens all the time.  The same thing happened to Sarah Palin for example.

A govonors email is more important then a scientists... whose email and research should be open source anwyay.

There are a few things I have seen which stand out from reading about this. First off, it appears that the suspicions that the peer review process has been politicized to prevent criticism are valid, and if these documents/emails have not been tampered with there is solid evidence of this; and this should (basically) eliminate the argument that a lot of global warming supporters use that there isn’t peer-reviewed counter-evidence.

Beyond that, it appears that several laws have been broken surrounding FOIP and there may be grounds to arrest several of these (so-called) "Scientists". How well does the scientific-consensus argument hold up if the (so-called) consensus is maintained by illegally (and unscientifically) restricting access to the data?

Realistically, with this coming out now it should mean that the outcomes from the next climate conference should be a 10 year timeline to audit all the information available on "Climate Change" and determine how much of it has been tampered with. In this context, anyone who suggests any action to curb CO2 emissions that has any negative consequences should be tarred and feathered.

...but the polar bears and the ice caps, dammit, the birds flying to early in season

Everyone's email is important, who cares if its Sarah, I can see Russia from my house, Palin.

Because it happens all the times don't make it right, it's actually sad yu've accepted it as a  normal thing. The weird thing is this is going nowhere but a fail attempt at derailing change which is taking so long anyway.

First off, if these so-called "Scientists" were actually following the scientific method hackers wouldn't be required to get information on global warming; and can you actually trust the findings of people who have perverted the scientific method so heavily? People often are critical of any scientist who received any money (even if it is only $100) from oil companies because they believe the conflict of interest might bias the results, and yet you seem willing to blindly accept the findings of people who have gone out of their way to change their findings to meet a political interest.

Beyond that, a person has no right to expect privacy from a non-personal email account ... and, while they shouldn't have their account hacked and posted on the internet, an email from an individual in a company/organization should be given similar respect to internal memos from that company/organization; and I don't see many people arguing that leaked memos are an intrusion of privacy.