Thanks for the advice, but as a skeptic (not a denier), I feel I read enough articles, columns, essays, etc. from satisfyingly independent sources (and, y'know, like, actual scientists) at the time to comfortably asses my position on the issue without needing to pore through 1000s emails myself.

I believe choosing columns from 8 years ago that do not represent developments in the story and all the available data on the Climate Gate scandal (not to mention revisions of climate models and corrections of other data) quite comfortably satisfies the definition of cherry-picking to support your argument. Numerous independent inquiries into the "scandal" found that there was no basis to the (sensational, conservative media, climate change denier and right-winger) claims that Climate Gate was anything other than a carefully orchestrated smear-campaign - not to mention the embarrassment of being associated with the likes of Sarah Palin.