We talked about climategate already, and I told you that the "gate" is vastly exaggerated. Some people quote mostly one sentence from one mail, and try to disprove the biggest part of the scientific community with it. If they had been right with their accusations, don't you think it would've changed something? It didn't, because the claims are wrong and the quotes out of context. Example? Here:

The most quoted email is from Phil Jones discussing paleo-data used to reconstruct past temperatures:
"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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that "decline" refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960.

Another one:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Trenberth is actually discussing a paper he'd recently published that discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going (Trenberth 2009).

In Trenberth's paper, he discusses how we know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, surface temperature sometimes shows short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm