If you want the real scoop then go to the source.
http://www.realclimate.org/ This is a blog that is contributed to by many of the specific climate scientists involved. Also be sure to check the "About" link and "Start Here" link for useful information.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ A list of data sources
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/ Many pages of contributor biographies.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ Thread discussing the hacked email contents and responses from the actual scientists involved.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/cru-hack-more-context/ Continuation of the above thread.
My bottom line is that this is certainly regrettable and evidence of irresponsibility but no smoking gun of malfeasance or wrongdoing. At this point all it amounts to is he said, she said with individual scientists (if they actually are scientists at all) that are known deniers usually with known connections to ExxonMobil through some think tank or other screaming foul with sometimes decent and sometimes rather weak responses from the CRU principles.
I for one simply follow the consensus view of climate scientists which I’ve repeatedly stated elsewhere. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.
"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A small minority of organisations hold non-committal positions."
I repeat, there is "no scientific body of national or international standing that has maintained a dissenting opinion." Individual scientists of all sorts of different credentials or lack thereof can say anything they want but *no* dissenting "scientific body of national or international standing" is pretty conclusive in my book, at least until this changes.
Right now *nothing* is proven, but I do expect that a thorough review of all of these things will take place and if this causes the scientific consensus to change or to disappear entirely then I will modify my stance accordingly. Until then I will continue to accept the combined opinion of *every* "scientific body of national or international standing."
I'd contribute more to this thread but frankly I'm really tired of the topic.