In a classic case of double confirmation bias, two groups are able to use a single incident to show how the other group is nothing but a bunch of liars. Those who use climategate to support their ideas of a conspiracy in Climatology found that many of the words used sounded bad. This despite the actual words having entirely different meanings than what laymen understand.
Those who use climategate to show that the deniers are able to use misunderstood words were found to be factual.
Let's look at the most popular quote...
Egad, that sounds horrible... until you understand what was said in the proper context. Let's define what was said above.
Mike's Nature trick: Referencing Michael Mann's study on using proxy temperature to numbers with modern temperatures.
Hide the decline: The decline references the divergence problem mentioned above. Tree-ring proxies begin diverging from the temperatures recorded by modern instruments. The way we get accurate numbers from this data is by using Mike's Nature trick.
Now, we'll translate the email...
"I corrected the divergence problem in our data by using separate proxy temperatures compared to those that were recorded by modern instruments."
That actually sounds reasonable.
In conclusion, please stop using "Climategate" to show something that it doesn't show.