No need anymore to broach the subject of the hacked emails about supposed lying about climate-change data, because it looks very likely that there was no such lying. The British scientists involved have adequately explained their use of words, such as "tricking" the data to mean the reconciling of databases; i.e., they apparently used the word "trick" to mean "massage" the data, to make them correlatable. Nothing in the hacked emails looks like a smoking gun. If there were, we would certainly have heard more about it from real scientists, not the news-entertainers, who have now fallen silent on the topic, too. (One of their ploys: create doubt without support, then cast about for something else.)
Where's the evidence other than that some British scientists used their odd, idiosyncratic language? In truth, there's a great deal of other, independent, evidence from a variety of studies about global climate change--e.g., re the ice caps--even if there had been some collusion at that single British research center (which, as I said, looks doubtful).
The linked Youtube video of an RT.com telecast is risible. It indicates more what the government of Russia wants to disperse about global climate change than it does about the actual science of global climate change. For, RT.com is "Russia Today," the new, well funded, state-run, state-owned Russian-government news agency of RIA Novosti, whose mission statement reads, "to present the Russian point of view" (I obtained this from RT.com; also see Wikipedia: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)>), when actually it presents the Russian GOVERNMENT's point of view. It is a cheerleader for the Kremlin, just as FOX Entertainment-"News" and the rabid Michelle Malkin are cheerleaders for the U.S. Republican Party and very conservative American ideology, including being anti-climate-change science (no matter what the science says).
With the recent 10% drop in the American public's belief in the science of global warming, Fox Entertainment-"News" has been successful in this matter, just as it was in creating the hysteria about Pres. Obama's "plan" to propagandize and brainwash America's elementary-school children. Remember that? It certainly was entertaining, in an hysteria-creating sort of way. See a pattern?
Addressing the Malkin article--that there was a conspiracy to suppress a paper by an EPA researcher--here's this article, a fairly recent one, from the NY Times, which obtained those four emails and more, under the Freedom of Information Act, and interviewed the EPA researcher, who, it turns out is not a climate scientist (this frequently is the case): <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?_r=1>.
Then, there's last week's (21 Jan. 2010) release of a report by NASA showing, among other things, that 2008 was only slightly cooler than 2005 which was the warmest year on record. It is a disingenuous reading of data to claim that the Planet is cooling when only one year is cooler than a previous year, especially when that year (2005) was the warmest since the 1880s. The trend is continuously upward with only small deviations from the upward trend. Please read the Agence France Press article (<http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/22-5>) and/or the NASA article (<http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=249>).
I will be glad to consider (again) the argument that climate scientists in the 1970s said that the Planet was cooling. That has been adequately denied by the one scientist who supposedly claimed the Planet was cooling (he did not, as he says). You can easily find his statements online. That the Planet was supposedly cooling was based on a sensationalist news article or two written in the general press to grab attention. Climate scientists did not claim the Planet was cooling. That fiction should have been dropped by now.
Present evidence that climate scientists said the Planet was cooling in the 1970s. (Even if they did, it would be of only historical interest.) Present evidence that the Planet is currently cooling (away from the long-term warming trend). Present evidence that counters the consensus, among climate scientists, not just an isolated few, that the Planet is warming and that there's the probability, to a significant degree, that it is due to anthropogenic causes.
This should be a matter of science, not a creation of Fox Entertainment-"News" and Michelle Malkin and Sen. Inhofe. The science is of the utmost importance to civilization. We can, and must, do without the ideologically motivated, hysteria-creating, news-entertainers.