The hackers didn't make anything up. They posted what they found. Jones resigned his post. The review of the incident said, in part, "...Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data that he knew—or perceived—were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work.

"In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. However, climate science is a matter of great importance and the quality of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data that support their work (including raw data) and full methodological workings (including the computer codes). Had both been available, many of the problems at UEA could have been avoided...."

No one in the field is denying that the emails are true. Only that they didn't have to release them because of the protocol for scientific data to be released.

There is nothing in your wiki link that says the hackers made up the information.

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../387/38703.htm