However, he pretends that the problem with "hide the decline" is about something other than tree rings...
Where does he say that? He says at 4:12: "But in fact, Jones was talking about something completely different [than the decline in the global temperature]: the apparent decline in temperatures shown by tree ring data since the 1950s." He is exactly stating that "hide the decline" has something to do with tree rings.
Basically, the guys "hiding the decline" desperately needed to hide the decline in temperatures for that part of their reconstruction in order for that reconstruction to be used as a metric for past temperatures versus CO2.
Yes, exactly as potholer says at 4:27: "The argument is whether tree rings should be used when reconstructing pre-industrial climates." You make this out to be something sneaky and hidden from public, especially combined with your closing statement:
The thing you also missed about the Climategate problem for AGW fans: a lot of what they said would be fine, in a publication, or in an answer to a paper. It was, however, stuff they never told anyone, because it poked huge holes in the foundation of their work.
However, at least in this case, you are simply wrong. It's been openly discussed since at least 1998 when a paper called "Trees tell of past climates: but are they
speaking less clearly today?" was published. A quote from the paper: "This is illustrated in figure 6, which shows that decadal trends in both large-scale-average [Tree-Ring Width] and [MaXimum latewood Density] increasingly diverge from the course of decadal temperature variation after about 1950 or 1960." The lead author, Keith Briffa, even works at the CRU! Clearly this was openly talked about, and before the "hide the decline" email (which was in 1999).
What else ya got?
2) Yes the greenhouse effect is a bit of a misnomer. It is a different effect than what causes greenhouses to work. This video has an explanation.