Copenhagen, Dec. 5 -- The stolen e-mails from a leading climate research center don't seem to be derailing the climate treaty talks kicking off Monday in Copenhagen.

President Obama has even changed his travel plans to show up near the very end of the meeting, when the highest-level negotiations occur, thanks to moves by China and India suggesting they want to make a real deal.

However, you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise, given how the story is playing out in the media, where a storyline has taken hold that makes the scientists who wrote the emails guilty before being proven innocent.

The clamor over the content of the emails -- which some on the right have dubbed "Climategate" -- has gotten loud enough that a United Nations panel plans to investigate whether the scientists were manipulating data.

The impeccable timing of the hack-and-heist has meant that for nearly two weeks the two stories merged. The negotiations have approached against a backdrop of possible scientific scandal, rather than in concert with a global consensus that something's got to be done about global warming (even if not everyone agrees on what and how).

If these researchers misused or abused data, we need to know.  But from what I've read so far of reactions by other scientists, the charges of joint misconduct against them don't hold up.

Conspiracies have happened in the realms of high-stakes climate politics and science, but they've been about hiding the reality of global warming, not faking it:

It's been well-documented that appointees of the Bush administration methodically worked to cast doubt on the reality of human-caused climate change.

Equally well-documented is the multi-million-dollar campaign to cast doubt on the scientific evidence of global warming, and turn the public against action to slow or stop global warming.  Participants in this conspiracy include conservaitve think tanks, fossil industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute, and petro-giant Exxon Mobil.

These plots were exposed by journalists via well-reported stories, which involved unambiguous documentation as well as firsthand information from participants.  These are real climate scandals.

But did they catch fire in the minds of the public and the press like the ill-defined, barely-substantiated "Climategate"?

It's fascinating, in a crazy-making sort of way, that the most successful "messaging" on climate change is still the kind that puts those who want positive action on the defensive, and lets people who perpetuate a big lie get away with it.