Sir, you appear to have a highly developed moral sense. I respectfully submit that you haven't really analyzed that sentence carefully, however.
Many means are justified by their ends. It's left to history to decide if the means really were justified. Some things, like Hiroshima, we still agonize over, 50 years later, whether the end justified the means. As for hacking some scientist's emails, and possibly saving hundreds of thousands or even millions of human lives by stopping a gross misallocation of resources? Yeah, I could sleep with a smile on my face on that one. No qualms about justification in my mind.
You are begging the question, assuming that climate change is a fraud and that any resources allocated to dealing with it will be detrimental to life. We might equally consider that if you're incorrect, many lives could be endangered through lack of necessary action...although given your characterization of this whole episode as a religious issue, I'm not sure you are aware of the fallacy in your argument.
Many means are justified by their ends. It's left to history to decide if the means really were justified. Some things, like Hiroshima, we still agonize over, 50 years later, whether the end justified the means. As for hacking some scientist's emails, and possibly saving hundreds of thousands or even millions of human lives by stopping a gross misallocation of resources? Yeah, I could sleep with a smile on my face on that one. No qualms about justification in my mind.