From the few emails I've read, it looks like the climate journals peer review process has been controlled. As typical in science, the editors of the journal pick the reviewer(s). If you only pick pro-AGW reviewers, any paper or letter that is critical will never get published. Then you can run around saying, "He hasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, therefore his work isn't any good." Mostly, likely the reviewer who spiked the paper was on your team.
Another thing that seems odd about these is how emotional and secretive they are about the data. There Jones & Mann seem to have lost objectivity and are more focused on finding any sign of warming instead of looking at the data objectively. This kind of reminds me of the stories about Watson and Crick and the Nobel for DNA. I was going to say that this line of research couldn't lead to a Nobel Prize, but they have given them out for less in the past.
When I worked at a research lab in England, we always shared everything. When others reproduced our work, we knew we were doing it right. Sometimes it takes time, but science in the end is decided based on the facts, not opinions or consensus. Science certainly doesn't follow Robert's Rules of Order and you can't "call the question."
Fact is, the science world is similar to the securities industry in the 1920s. Miscreants there are, but there's no legal remedy unless civil or criminal fraud can be established - in the ordinary way. The only kind of smoking gun that would do so, would be an admission that: a) the data for a certain paper was salted, and b)it was necessary to do so in order to secure further funding. Even that double admisssion may only be good for a civil action.