I think it will probably prevent a legally binding commitment being agreed, yes.
The emails and documents don't prove that the theory of man-made global warming (or "climate change" as it's now being termed, since the global warming trend has now vanished) is a hoax. What is implicit, though, is that the science behind the theory is not "settled", as is insisted upon by Al Gore, Gordon Brown, and many climatologists.
Also implicit is that there needs to be a review of the scientific process behind climate study, to ensure that: where evidence doesn't suit the theory then the theory is discarded; when evidence is "unhelpful", it is not discarded or concealed, and; that both the scientific methodology employed in theses and also the post-conclusion peer review process are open and transparent, not guarded incestuously by the scientists performing the scientific research.
There are many ripples through the broader scientific community in reaction to the revelations about the science of climatology, mostly regarding the peer review process. It seems clear that many scientists are concerned that confidence in their own reputations as scientists could be undermined by the standard of "settled" science of climatology. There's a real potential for the "scientist" to become a source of mockery all down the cynical side of community, and so I'm anticipating reviews in many "seats of learning" to be subject to critical review and change, where necessary, to bolster practices of transparency, evidential support/data availability and reinforced and vigorous peer-review mechanisms.
Scientists do generally pride themselves on the distinction between science and religion - Galilean principles, in other words - and anything that blurs that distinction (faith without proof of AGW) will be regarded as a top priority to address.
Well, that's how I see it all falling back to earth, anyway