No, it wasn't and it wasn't about climate change, either, which is why comments such a HWonderly's are not only bizarre, they are entirely off-topic.

The post was about the media. Specifically, how in this case the media focused on the (out of centext)content of the emails while ignoring that they were illegally obtained while in the two other cases cited the means by which the information was obtained became the story wtih the content mostly if not entirely ignored.

Here is what REAL scientists (including climate scientists) say about this story:

Scientists say the illegally obtained emails do not undermine climate change science

Distortions of illegally obtained documents from one group of scientists do not undermine overwhelming consensus. In a statement on the reported theft of the emails, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated that "no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment." From Pachauri's statement:

In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping I.P.C.C. assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
The unfortunate incident that has taken place through illegal hacking of the private communications of individual scientists only highlights the importance of I.P.C.C. procedures and practices and the thoroughness by which the Panel carries out its assessment. This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.

IPCC: "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis." The IPCC, which is a scientific body established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization, has established that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal." The IPCC "reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide," and its reports are the product of contributions from "[t]housands of scientists from all over the world."

Nature: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real." A December 2 editorial in the science journal Nature stated: "Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails." Also from the editorial:

The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers' own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers

I am BEYOND fed up with the ignorance of people who grab onto every stupid thing they can to deny the reality of global warming. GET OVER IT. Global warming IS happening. It is REAL and people like Wonderly better start thinking about the impact of global warming on the economy and BILLIONS of people lives!!!

150,000
The number of people who died in 2000 due to debilitating diseases caused by climate change in 2000, according to a 2003 study by the World Health Organization.

A 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that “hundreds of millions of people in developing nations will face natural disasters, water shortages and hunger" due to climate change. The report warned that global warming's effects are already being felt "on every continent, and sooner than expected."

In 1910 there were 150 glaciers at Glacier National Park; now there are 25.
Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers within ten years.
Southern California is home to 23 million people, all of whom are dependent on the Colorado River for the majority of their water needs.
Due to decreasing mountain snow melt in areas like Glacier National Park and the Colorado River, the primary water supply for seven states, will be unable to meet demands within FOUR YEARS.

1. Mountain glaciers are receding worldwide and will be gone within 50 years if CO2 emissions continue to increase. This threatens the fresh water supply for billions of people, as rivers arising in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains will begin to run dry in the summer and fall.
2. Coral reefs, home to a quarter of biological species in the ocean, could be destroyed by rising temperature and ocean acidification due to increasing CO2.
3. Dry subtropics are expanding poleward with warming, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, and Australia, with increasing drought and fires.

So assuming one act was worse than the other (far far worse I believe though let’s stay away from the H word), how can you honestly believe this exposure was as bad as email fraud? It's the same thought process that believes ACORN's wrongdoings were nothing compared to the serious crime of violation of privacy by the intrepid reporters who bravely exposed them.

I have no horse in this race. I call it as I see it, and have followed (the anti climate change leader) Lord Christopher Monckton's words for years but waited for proof. The proof is here. The perpetrators must be punished and those of you who are seeing the truth must now come to terms with. Don't shoot the messenger.
I know this doesn't prove climate change does not exist, so how about we start again, but this time with real science? Am I wrong?