I take a different view based on several factors.
We are seeing weather patterns that are different. e.g. Flooding in the UK is happening at greater frequency than would be predicted from historical trends; mountain tops have less snow on them now than in the past. There really is evidence at such an easy to spot level. Changes are visible at a rate that, to me, appears very rapid. Something really is happening. Is it climate change as put forward by most scientists?
There can be a tendency to disbelieve official sources as being institutionally corrupt whilst also having a tendency to believe fringe stuff. I mistrust fringe propaganda more than I mistrust governments and senior scientists in universities.
The greenhouse effect is a scientific fact. It is why greenhouses work. Now it may be that the greenhouse gases are not so effective as theory predicts at trapping heat so the greenhouse gas effect is not by itself going to cause a problem. It is highly possible that polluting the atmosphere will lead to environmental catastophe. Maybe it won't. Most climate change scientists believe it will. So, what is the rational course to take? We could carry on polluting our world as an ultimate experiment and then, if the answer is a catastrophe, it will be too late to go back. Or we could play it safe, recognise that the majority scientific opinion is that we are heading for trouble, and do what we can to pull back from potential environmental disaster.
Fossil fuels are running out anyway. Money put into alternative energy sources would seem money well spent even if climate change theory is wrong.
The groups that are using hacked emails to challenge the overall theory are simply doing what I would do if I was in a weak position and wanted to carry out a political negotiation. I would look for my opponents' weakest points and try to make those as high profile as possible whilst downplaying the best evidence supporting their position. If you want a conspiracy theory why not look at energy businesses and try to make links between them and those who argue against climate change?
It took a long time for scientific eveidence to win the day over big business over the link between smoking and lung cancer. Maybe we are seeing a repeat of something like that rather than a world wide conspiracy between governments and climate change scientists.
Hopefully you think my post is rational even though you will probably disagree with me as I disagree with you.
Bookmarks