I bet someone could hack any leading climate change deniers emails (assuming them to be saved and of a comparable volume on the subject) and cherry pick sentences to show that though secretly believe in climate change, they are conspiring to fool the public for their own finacial gain. Or any one of dozens of other untrue positions.

I really don't attach any serious credibility to the people who hacked this and released it just as the Copenhagn talks are ongoing - their agenda and dishonesty is pretty clear. As I'm sure you know.

And for the article?
Professor Phil Jones said the email "caused a great deal of ill-informed comment, but has been taken completely out of context and I want to put the record straight. The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."
So rather more than it was ten years ago and he can't recall what was in it. Oh, wait.... the "serious" journailist behind that article managed to miss that bit. How very credible

I think the best summing up, the most honest one by some way compared to this dishonest article you posted, is this quote by UEA "the selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way"