The scandal is not the hacking but the substance of the content hacked.

http://tinyurl.com/yayyrlv
Hacked Climate Change Emails Set Off Political Storm By Richard Koman, ...
****To hear the MainStreamMedia tell it, the issue is the breach of security and the publication of documents intended not to see the light of day. The NYTimes, in an act of extraordinary hypocrisy, declined to publish from the trove of hacked documents on the grounds that it was improperly, perhaps illegally, obtained. This from the publication that published the Pentagon Papers and has on myriad occasions published things that were classified and could reasonably be thought to breach national security.
The point of the publication of these email exchanges within the religious community of AnthropicGlobalWarming professERS is that they have consistently suborned perjury within their community, admitted distorting so-called evidence and called on others in the community to do the same. Simultaneously, the emails reveal a continual conspiracy to drown out voices of legitimate dissent and deny those who disagree public forums in the journals that the community favors. Not only have the members of the AGW community seemed not to understand empirical science ( requiring empirical evidence to back up or falsify predictive theories), claiming that computer models are somehow empirical evidence, and that their agreement WITH EACH OTHER is some kind of validation ( of anything other than groupthink) but they have violated the basic tenet of all science which is the dispassionate search for truth.
I say "profess" rather than "believe" because the emails reveal a cynical desire to obscure the truth, both of their claims and that of those debunking them; were they actual BELIEVERS, they would welcome any light shed on errors or counter-examples since they would hope that the truth will out and substantiate their beliefs. Rather, the AGW community, with Al Gore as their High Priest, does not search for truth but merely the furtherance of their agenda by any means, foul if needed ( as it seems, from the correspondence, to be the case continually.)
Why the MSM is misdirecting attention to the process by which these emails were unearthed, rather than on the UNDENIED accuracy of them and on their political and unscientific agenda, is unclear except that the MSM are part of the community and, themselves, hold no brief for accurate reporting and analysis. It is impossible for any objective observer to lend any further credence to the positions and claims of the AGW community until they clean their house, acknowledge and renounce their actions to this point, and start over again. For the world to be asked to spend trillions of dollars on the basis of their claims, tainted to this point, is absurd. ****
http://tinyurl.com/ylaqyxy
Global Warming With the Lid Off The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
...If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . ...So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. ... more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet...****Jones was referring to his intent to thwart the efforts of people trying to get at his raw data to determine if his published claims were borne out by the evidence.Destroying evidence when obliged to provide it is actionable in the U.S. and, likely, in the U.K. as well. What it says about the scientific ethics and integrity of Jones and his correspondents is unambiguous.****...even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.... responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers....all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
****This is too charitable; the only reason for withholding the "right to know" is that what would be known is at variance with the public claims of the malefactors, i.e. their exaggerations or outright lies.****... sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become......Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with." When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative ..."The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. ...therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.". Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,"...we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal." Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming... we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.