ANNOUNCER: The Trick was made possible in part by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪ [woman giggles] PHIL: Wait.

RUTH: There we go.

[woman giggles] PHIL: Lily, careful there.

LILY: Sorry, Grandad.

RUTH: Ready?

PHIL: Yes, ready.

Okay.

RUTH: Ready, Lily?

PHIL: Here I come!

[all shouting] RUTH: Run!

[Lily giggles] [Phil grunts] I can'’’t believe you'’’re still doing that.

♪ [Lily giggles] ♪ LILY: Whee!

[Lily giggles] [Ruth giggles] ♪ SPEAKER: I'’’d like to welcome you to this international conference for climate change, 2009.

It is my great pleasure to welcome our keynote speaker, who has been a pioneer in climate science for the last 30 years, an expert in his field, world-renowned, and who will address us on his work on the global instrumental temperature record, often referred to as a hockey stick graph, which has been so important in helping us to understand the cause of change during the last 1,000 years.

We are honored to welcome Professor Philip Jones.

[crowd clapping] RUTH: Go on, then.

[crowd clapping] PHIL: Thank you.

Thank you very much.

♪ ♪ [footsteps tapping] SAM: I'’’ll call you to let you know when I'’’m back.

You'’’re a star, Dad, thanks.

BARRYMORE: Right, kid.

♪ NEIL: Where the hell are you?

The train leaves in two minutes.

[train clacking] SAM: Sorry.

I had to sort out the kids.

NEIL: Right.

Let'’’s see what level of a ----storm we'’’ve got here.

REPORTER: The University of East Anglia'’’s Climategate email controversy.

SPEAKER 1: Climategate.

SPEAKER 2: Climategate.

SPEAKER 3: The Climategate scandal.

JEREMY: Scientists are using words like trick.

REPORTER: Climategate they'’’re calling it, a new scandal over global warming and it'’’s burning up the internet.

Have the books been cooked on climate change?

JIM: At worst it'’’s junk science and it is a part of a massive, international, scientific fraud.

TREVOR: It'’’s a communications consultancy.

Crisis management.

Neil Wallace, ex-editor of a Sunday tabloid and his colleague Sam Bowen.

Sam'’’s background is more corporate public relations.

RUTH: Can we trust them?

TREVOR: I think we have to.

We'’’re running out of time.

They'’’re accusing him of fraud, Ruth.

How is Phil?

NEIL: You ever seen a select committee hearing?

SAM: No.

NEIL: It'’’s no walk in the park.

Eight people right there in front of you and trying to put you on a skewer.

SAM: Right.

NEIL: It'’’s the House of Commons, the government.

An all-out vindication and this Professor Philip Jones and the rest of them have got half a chance.

The slightest whiff of a rap across the knuckles and they'’’re screwed.

SAM: So we'’’ve got one shot at it?

To clear their names?

NEIL: And three weeks to do it.

JEREMY: Skulduggery, scientific espionage and black propaganda.

Have scientists really been manipulating the data?

NEIL: They claim to be victims of a crime, right?

SAM: They are.

NEIL: From the off everyone is all over their arses like they'’’re the criminals.

Even the tree-huggers, the environment correspondents.

We need institutions independent of them declaring their innocence.

SAM: I suppose they don'’’t know, do they?

NEIL: What?

SAM: If they are innocent or if Jones did rig the data to exaggerate the increase in temperatures?

NEIL: Exactly, everyone is terrified and they'’’re guilty as charged.

Maybe they'’’re right to be.

REPORTER: Tonight faces forensic examination.

The temperature graphs at the heart of concern about climate change will now be picked over by experts.

♪ ♪ [car door closes] EDWARD: Edward Acton, Vice Chancellor.

NEIL: Neil Wallace.

SAM: Sam Bowen.

Pleased to meet you.

EDWARD: This is my Pro-Vice Chancellor, Trevor Davies.

NEIL: Trevor.

EDWARD: Former director of the Climatic Research Unit, also known as CRU.

[footsteps] [water pouring] Three months ago.

SAM: When you were hacked?

EDWARD: No.

TREVOR: The hacking itself was some months before.

EDWARD: We only became aware of it when the hacker uploaded the file to... What was it called again?

TREVOR: Realclimate.org.

The university learned about it the following day.

NEIL: And you, Phil.

Is that when you found out?

PHIL: I... RUTH: Yes, that'’’s when we found out too.

SAM: And what was your response once you knew there'’’d been a hack?

TREVOR: We informed the police and told them there had been an IT system breach.

EDWARD: A data theft.

I think that'’’s the phrase that was used.

[footsteps] PHIL: Goodnight.

NEIL: Goodnight.

RUTH: Thank you, Stella.

STELLA: You'’’re very welcome.

EDWARD: These are the press office documents and I'’’ve had made this for you, it'’’s the broadcast coverage.

NEIL: Good.

We'’’ll take a look at that tonight.

EDWARD: Isn'’’t it rather late?

NEIL: The House of Commons hearing, it'’’s in three weeks, right?

EDWARD: Yes.

NEIL: The clock'’’s ticking, Edward, so yeah, we'’’ll be working tonight.

EDWARD: I see, good.

Good.

[footsteps] [Sam exhales sharply] SAM: Jesus, they weren'’’t joking.

He'’’s broken.

NEIL: Yep.

SAM: Do you think he..?

NEIL: He did it?

You'’’d expect him to be a bit more pissed off, wouldn'’’t you?

If he was innocent.

SAM: Are you sure I'’’m the right person for this?

I do corporate.

Branding.

NEIL: Which means you know digital.

Look, whatever.

We'’’re here now, aren'’’t we?

Getting paid to get this lot out of a hole, guilty or not.

[footsteps] [Sam sighs] ♪ [seat belt clicks] ♪ [car engine revving] ♪ JULIAN: Okay, thanks for coming, everyone.

Thank you, uh... Let'’’s start with the headlines.

Two days ago the Safer Neighborhoods team logged a data theft from a backup server at the University'’’s Climatic Research Unit, known as CRU.

Safer Neighborhoods flagged the call to Special Branch and last night, Gold Command, on my recommendation, initiated Operation Cabin as a major investigation.

The contents of the file appears to be around 1,000 emails and other documents written over a 10-year period by staff at CRU, mostly by its current director, Professor Philip Jones, world-renowned climate scientist.

Gareth here is from Kinetic, a defense contractor specializing in cyber security.

His team will lead on the digital investigation, reporting directly to me as senior investigating officer.

The other two lines of inquiry, physical breach of CRU or an internal leak, will be overseen by Gold Group.

This is a Category A investigation, so we can hopefully expect some additional support from National Counter- terrorism, Scotland Yard.

Yes?

ANITA: The Cat A status, sorry, boss, but who'’’s been murdered?

JULIAN: No one, DS Shapaya.

ANITA: So the only crime that we'’’re invest... JULIAN: The breach of the Computer Misuse Act, section one, and, depending what we turn up, maybe section two.

Regardless, this is still a Cat A investigation, and I would appreciate it if it were treated as such.

Right, if there aren'’’t any more questions, you know the drill.

Any pissed-off employees, office politics, financial vulnerability who had access, what was the IT set-up, any hint of a motivation, I wanna hear about it.

Thank you.

DS Shapaya, a word?

You know, I appreciate this might just be a staff member with an axe to grind, or some hacker winning a pissing contest, but if it isn'’’t, look at the timing, join the dots.

Three weeks before COP15, the UN Climate Conference.

Think about it, if this is someone trying to influence the global response to climate change, well, then, I'’’d say maybe Cat A isn'’’t high enough.

♪ [camera shutter clicking] ♪ [camera shutter clicking] ♪ ♪ GARETH: The stolen emails are mostly conversations between colleagues, climate scientists, here and in the US.

JULIAN: And these conversations, they'’’ve been taken wholesale?

GARETH: No, because whoever compiled this file, they knew what they were looking for.

These emails had been selected, probably using a word search for certain phrases.

The first place a link is posted along with this comment here, "a miracle has happened," is climateaudit.org.

It'’’s a climate skeptic blog run by this man, Steve McIntyre.

JULIAN: He'’’s receiving the link?

He'’’s not, he'’’s not sending it?

GARETH: Yeah, but he'’’s got history with Jones.

Um, McIntyre is a Canadian ex-mining consultant turned self-appointed climate science fact checker.

If you look at his blog posts and the comment streams of his website, and the emails, it reveals that there is an established relationship with Jones.

And it seems as far back as 2002, he'’’s been asking Jones for his data.

JULIAN: Which Jones gave him?

GARETH: Yeah, initially.

But then, McIntyre started using it to criticize Jones, to undermine his career, Jones backed off.

McIntyre, well, he got frustrated.

Earlier this year, he persuaded his entire database to send freedom of information requests to CRU, asking for their raw data.

JULIAN: Which they did.

GARETH: Yeah.

Jones was flooded, and I mean flooded, with requests.

60 in one week, look.

It'’’s a bloody tsunami.

JULIAN: Annoying, but not illegal.

GARETH: Yes, but that'’’s where it gets interesting.

Our initial analysis of the hard drives and server you seized suggests that the unit was hacked several times between that same time period.

JULIAN: Are you saying there was more than one breach?

GARETH: Not only that.

McIntyre'’’s requests were formally refused by the university.

And four days later, a file of stolen materials goes live.

PHIL: I have not falsified any data!

[paper slams on table] RUTH: Collusion?

They can'’’t argue with the facts.

PHIL: But that'’’s what they do all the time!

♪ RUTH: Do you really think this is them?

PHIL: Well, of course it'’’s them!

♪ [Ruth breathes deep] ♪ I'’’m sorry.

I haven'’’t done anything wrong, Ruth.

[Phil cries] JULIAN: Are you suggesting that McIntyre was responsible?

GARETH: No.

It was a relatively sophisticated attack, he wouldn'’’t have the capability.

JULIAN: But there was a coordination.

GARETH: More likely someone else with a vested interest in tracking his disputes with CRU.

Yeah, you should also speak to this guy.

This is Steve Mosher.

He'’’s an established lukewarmer.

He doesn'’’t believe that climate change is as serious as everyone'’’s making out.

When the emails came out, he was in charge of finding the extracts before they were taken down.

"I'’’ve just completed Mike'’’s Nature trick," "to hide the decline.

Cheers, Phil."

JULIAN: And these are the extracts that are penetrating now?

GARETH: Yeah.

It'’’s a very effective selection.

Mosher knew exactly what he was doing.

♪ TREVOR: Have your comms team got Phil'’’s comment on why he used the word "trick?"

BILL: Already on the website, along with an acknowledgement of the hack.

TREVOR: Look, I think we should do more, defend the science.

BILL: We'’’d be inviting an attack.

TREVOR: I'’’m telling you that there'’’s an established history.

BILL: It'’’s a bunch of bloggers, Trevor.

Just let them burn the story out amongst themselves.

TREVOR: There was a piece in The Guardian, and surely as comms... BILL: Our defense would only raise more questions, give the story oxygen.

TREVOR: We don'’’t want the science questioned, either.

BILL: Look.

If we can get through the weekend without the "Today" program calling us, I really think we'’’ll be fine, okay?

JIM: 25 to eight.

Those who are on the skeptic side have seized on these emails.

One of those skeptics is Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, whose book, "An Appeal To Reason."

NIGEL: On the face of it, it looks as if the raw data were being manipulated in order to prove what they wanted to prove, that they were refusing to allow other scientists outside access to the raw data, that they were, uh, talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed through the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, these are very, very serious things.

It may be that there is an innocent explanation for all this, but what is absolutely clear, because this is the basis on which science, on policy decisions are being made, to some extent, by the government, and by governments around the world, it has also tarnished very badly the international reputation of British science.

They'’’ll need... TREVOR: It'’’s just, we really need some clarity, especially on why some of the temperature data can'’’t be released to the public.

Phil... RUTH: "Dear Phil Jones, you should kill yourself.

"You lying prick, arse----.

"And if you don'’’t, "I'’’ll be more than happy to do it for you and your family."

TREVOR: Oh, God.

That'’’s terrible.

We'’’ll inform the police.

Look, Ruth, if he does come round a bit, would you mind.

He'’’s the only one who knows the truth about the emails, the temperature.

RUTH: I know, believe me, I know.

Even his voice has changed, Trevor.

Like it'’’s stuck in his throat.

♪ [water splashing] ♪ LILY: Are you and Grandad coming to my school play, Granny?

RUTH: Of course, sweetheart.

It might just be Granny this time.

LILY: Okay.

[lips smack] RUTH: Okay.

LILY: Bye.

RUTH: Bye.

LILY: Bye, Granny, see you soon, bye.

[Ruth cries] TREVOR: These are the most damaging extracts.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith?

Keith will do likewise.

"We'’’re choosing the periods to show warming.

"I'’’ve just completed Mike'’’s Nature trick, to hide the decline."

BILL: The press inquiries haven'’’t stopped all morning, it'’’s unprecedented.

Like nothing anyone'’’s seen before.

And from the US now, too.

EDWARD: What is it they want, specifically?

BILL: Phil.

The extracts are mostly from his emails.

And he'’’s the director of CRU.

They wanna know why all of CRU'’’s data isn'’’t available as well.

But in terms of people, Phil.

No one else.

TREVOR: I'’’m afraid that'’’s not gonna be possible.

BILL: Well, surely you don'’’t stand by his comments on the website?

TREVOR: Well, yeah, yeah... EDWARD: Why isn'’’t Phil available?

It would be the clearest way to set things straight.

TREVOR: I agree.

I went round there this morning after the Lawson interview.

The man'’’s struggling.

RUTH: 30 years ago, do you remember, you had that offer of work in California?

And we came here to talk about it, about the kids moving school.

What it would all mean.

And you got so excited.

Not about going, but about staying.

About what that meant.

Do you remember?

Philip, if I can remember, I know you do.

"It'’’s going to be important," that'’’s what you said.

Politicians were just starting to talk about global warming, and you said that when they finally came to act on it, they'’’d need data they could trust.

They'’’d need evidence, and that you, CRU, would be able to give it to them.

Well, that time is now, Philip.

And you were right.

They do need your evidence.

Which is why we can'’’t let these bastards destroy all you'’’ve done.

It'’’s too important.

♪ You'’’re too important.

♪ "I'’’ve found what I can do, Ruth."

That'’’s what you said.

♪ "And the place I can do it."

♪ God, and I so wanted to go to California!

[Ruth giggles] PHIL: Did you?

RUTH: Yeah!

[Phil sighs] ♪ RUTH: You'’’re going to have to speak up, Philip.

BILL: We'’’ll issue a press statement with Phil'’’s comment from the website.

And let'’’s see if he'’’ll do a Press Association interview, at least.

Just print, no TV.

EDWARD: Let'’’s announce an independent inquiry into the allegations and into the actions of our staff.

If there has been malpractice, we must show we'’’re keen as mustard to investigate.

And we need support, too.

Public support.

TREVOR: Thanks, Chris.

Any help in releasing the data is hugely appreciated.

We were wondering if your department could give a statement too?

CHRIS: I'’’ll see what I can do.

TREVOR: We really need help on this one, Chris.

CHRIS: Trevor, sorry, look, I'’’ve got to go.

Sir David, have you seen the CRU fallout?

SIR DAVID: Christ, haven'’’t I?

Bloody hell were they thinking about?

I mean, I wouldn'’’t accept such loose practices from my students.

CHRIS: Well, siege mentality.

I mean, the deniers have had them in their sights for as long as I can remember.

SIR DAVID: That is precisely when you have to be careful, when you think you'’’re in a battle.

I mean, not to put the data in the public domain.

CHRIS: Well, to be fair, Sir David, it isn'’’t theirs to give.

SIR DAVID: What do you mean?

CHRIS: Well, CRU built its models on data from meteorological services.

And sometimes, that data comes with nondisclosure agreements.

SIR DAVID: Sir David King, School of Enterprise and the Environment, Oxford University.

Thanks very much.

CHRIS: I'’’ve been on the phone all morning to the Met Office, putting pressure on them to give clearance to release all the data.

SIR DAVID: And?

CHRIS: Not yet.

SIR DAVID: Any news about the hack?

CHRIS: Nothing I'’’ve heard.

Any thoughts?

SIR DAVID: Well, take your pick.

Could be the Russians, the Saudis, the oil companies, anybody who'’’s got money in the game.

But you know, it'’’s clever, going after the data behind the modeling.

CHRIS: I don'’’t understand why everyone expects science models to be perfect.

I mean, no one ever goes after economic models, do they?

SIR DAVID: No, that'’’s because nobody'’’s trying to undermine the economics.

[bell dings] CHRIS: Do you really think it will affect the COP in Copenhagen?

SIR DAVID: Well, it might scare the horses a bit, but no, this COP is dead in the water anyway.

CHRIS: You really think so?

SIR DAVID: Come on, Chris.

I mean, the US are not gonna sign up to their commitment to carbon reductions unless it'’’s voluntary, and if they won'’’t sign, then neither will the Chinese or the Russians.

Look, do what you can about getting the Met to release that data.

It could douse the flames.

[Chris sighs] HUW: Now, the head of a British climate research institute has stepped aside after leaked emails were said to suggest that the case for global warming had been exaggerated.

Phil Jones, at the University of East Anglia, will relinquish his duties while an independent review is carried out.

Our environment correspondent, David Shukman.

♪ ♪ [Phil cries] ♪ ♪ GARETH: There are more stolen emails.

I'’’m saying there'’’s a lot more.

Almost 200,000 in total.

JULIAN: 200?

GARETH: So, the really odd thing, that they left the cache on the server.

Which is almost like they, well.

I guess it'’’s almost like they wanted us to know.

JULIAN: What are you saying?

GARETH: Well, it means that CRU wasn'’’t the only climate unit that was attacked.

JULIAN: There were more hacks?

GARETH: Attempts.

CRU was the only successful breach.

JULIAN: What were the other attempts?

GARETH: Okay, so, persons unknown posing as network technicians tried to gain access to climate science offices at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

And there were attempts to access the servers at the Canadian Centre for Climatology and Analysis, the National Center of Atmospheric Research in Colorado, and an attempted unauthorized entry to the computer systems at the State Department Climate Bureau.

JULIAN: And when, when was all this?

GARETH: This is all in the last 12 months.

RUTH: You do know he'’’s the victim?

It'’’s his emails that were stolen.

It'’’s him that'’’s being dragged through the papers.

Why aren'’’t you going after who did this?

ANITA: I realize this must be upsetting.

RUTH: No one'’’s getting the truth.

Just what they read, what they hear.

Where are you going?

ANITA: Just down to the station.

PHIL: We just.

RUTH: Why?

ANITA: We need to print the statement and have it signed immediately.

RUTH: Well, use our bloody printer!

PHIL: Ruth, it'’’s fine, really.

ANITA: We'’’ll be 30 minutes, I promise.

[door closes] This hockey stick graph, the one that you mention in the interview, why is it so important exactly?

PHIL: Well, it'’’s a reconstruction of global temperature, [stammering] a window into the past, I suppose, back 1,000 years.

[Phil sighs and grunts] All these are decades here.

That is the handle of the stick.

And here, in the 19th century, when industrialization takes off, up until now, that'’’s the blade, when temperatures increase dramatically.

ANITA: This is your work?

PHIL: Well, I contributed.

CRU was the first unit to be dedicated to the subject of climate change.

We devoted more time than anyone else to gather the temperature data.

It'’’s not just from across the world, but from across time.

ANITA: Wow.

PHIL: From before we had thermometer readings, historical um, records, ships'’’ logs.

And then even further back, proxy data, such as tree rings and ice cores.

ANITA: I saw the tree rings on the walls of your office.

They'’’re beautiful.

PHIL: Well, all of that, the proxy and historical data goes into the graph.

It helps make the past readable.

♪ ANITA: Best get you home, yeah.

PHIL: Thank you.

♪ STELLA: Who'’’s doing this, Trevor?

TREVOR: Who knows?

Plenty of vested interests would like Copenhagen to fail.

I know why they'’’re doing it to us, though.

The hockey stick graph.

STELLA: The one showing the rise in global temperatures?

TERVOR: Yeah, CRU'’’s work has been keystone to that graph.

I mean, it was meant to be the final word in the debate.

The science behind it is complex, though the way it conveys it is simple, it cuts through the noise.

That'’’s what the skeptics don'’’t like.

Ever since it was published, they'’’ve known, if they'’’re to keep the debate going, they have to cast doubt on the hockey stick.

STELLA: Crafty buggers.

EDWARD: Sorry.

That was a long one.

Must have done over 20 interviews now.

It'’’s like speaking into a storm.

No one can hear us.

TREVOR: Or wants to.

We'’’re being drowned out by a sigh of relief.

EDWARD: Relief?

TREVOR: Well, imagine if you woke up tomorrow to be told you don'’’t have to worry about climate change.

Millions of dollars have gone into the denial campaigns.

And most of it to achieve exactly this, to make the science seem uncertain.

It'’’s been going on for years, ever since we first started talking about actually doing something about global warming.

STELLA: Which was when, exactly?

TREVOR: Oh, late '’’80s.

EDWARD: So those campaigns essentially, they bought themselves time with those millions.

TREVOR: They'’’ve had decades to prepare a receptive environment.

Whoever hacked into us, all they had to do was release those emails in the right places and sit back and watch.

EDWARD: They'’’ve had 20 years to prepare for this.

We'’’ve had days.

We need crisis management advice.

LISA: It'’’s a straight choice.

Duck it or fight it.

EDWARD: But how do we fight it if the world wants Phil and the data and we can'’’t provide either.

LISA: Okay, well, if Phil can'’’t do the interviews, then you have to.

EDWARD: What about the independent inquiry?

LISA: No one gets hacked for the sake of it.

There'’’s always intent.

The UN Climate Conference, the COP, it opens next week, right?

EDWARD: Yes.

LISA: So, it'’’s a strategy.

Someone'’’s decided to take positive action to... EDWARD: We don'’’t actually know if that'’’s the case.

LISA: Nothing'’’s a coincidence.

Sow doubt where there'’’s certainty, apply a minor inconsistency to the entire evidence, discredit a group of people, muddy the debate, all to achieve policy outcry.

It'’’s hardly new.

Straight out of the tobacco companies'’’ playbook when they were stalling for time on cigarettes and cancer.

EDWARD: Mmm.

LISA: Other interest groups have used the same strategies around pesticides, the ozone hole, acid rain.

It'’’s not like we haven'’’t seen these tactics before.

EDWARD: No.

Never with the internet.

The blocks.

LISA: Yeah, that is new.

I'’’ll admit there'’’s no playbook for that.

Look.

This isn'’’t gonna be easy.

For a start, you'’’re a white, middle-aged, posh man.

[Edward scoffs] It'’’s gonna be hard for you to go on TV and come across as likable.

EDWARD: Yes.

Yes, I see.

LISA: It'’’s your only choice.

Do nothing now, that'’’s as good as being guilty.

♪ JON: Now, it'’’s hard to believe that some emails written on a university campus in Norwich could be quite so damaging.

Today, Saudi Arabia'’’s chief climate change negotiator, no less, said the leaked emails from scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia will have a huge impact on next week'’’s Copenhagen summit, even as it'’’s... [TV clicks off] RUTH: You shouldn'’’t be watching that.

PHIL: Why not?

It'’’s what I'’’ve done.

RUTH: That'’’s not true.

PHIL: They'’’ve finally found a way to get me, Ruth.

And they'’’ll, well, pull at this thread until it all unravels!

They'’’ve won, Ruth.

RUTH: No, they haven'’’t!

They know the truth is out there now.

So all they can do is try to find ways of delaying how soon it reaches everyone.

That'’’s not the actions of people who'’’ve won.

Philip, that'’’s the desperation of people who'’’ve lost.

♪ PHIL: You'’’re forgetting something.

RUTH: What?

♪ PHIL: Not everyone wants the truth to reach them.

♪ [seat belt clicks] [car accelerates] SAM: So, what do you think?

NEIL: I think they'’’re screwed.

♪ ♪ [plastic clacking noises] ♪ [paper rustling] ♪ SAM: The blogs I get and the American right- wing networks, but the mainstream media following their lead.

The BBC, for Christ'’’s sake!

NEIL: Which is why we need to get him out there.

SAM: Phil?

NEIL: We need to put a human face on this, before the House of Commons hearing.

Get the public back on our side.

SAM: He could barely talk.

NEIL: Which is why it has to be print.

No TV.

SAM: You'’’re serious?

NEIL: We'’’ll have to coach him.

[Sam scoffs] Sunday Times, front page.

SAM: Do you think they'’’ll take it?

NEIL: They'’’ll love it!

It'’’s what they'’’ve been baying for, isn'’’t it?

The man at the heart of it.

Edward tried his best, but no one wanted to know.

SAM: So we throw them to the lions.

NEIL: With a couple of lion tamers in the room.

But yeah, if it means we'’’re the ones feeding them for a bit.

That'’’s exactly what we do.

No time for anything else.

Not with that House of Commons committee breathing down our necks.

We'’’ll coach him here.

Today.

EDWARD: Are you sure this is the right...?

NEIL: I'’’m positive.

Unless you wanna cut him loose.

EDWARD: Out of the question.

NEIL: Well, I had to check.

Because if it'’’s the reputation of the university you'’’re trying to save here.

EDWARD: It isn'’’t.

NEIL: It isn'’’t?

EDWARD: Well, yes, it is, but that'’’s no longer the priority.

This is about more than the university now.

Much more.

NEIL: The science?

EDWARD: The truth.

NEIL: Right.

EDWARD: That'’’s what'’’s at stake here.

And who gets to tell the truth, or not, about something that affects every living thing on the planet.

[footsteps] NEIL: Mea culpa.

That'’’s what you open with, before anything else.

PHIL: But... NEIL: I'’’ll brief the journalists to ask about the data stuff first, the Freedom of Information request.

When he does, you put your hands up.

Admit you got it wrong.

PHIL: But those requests, they weren'’’t genuine.

SAM: Yes, we know.

PHIL: The data was already... SAM: But admitting that you got frustrated, you could have handled it better, that'’’s very relatable.

NEIL: Yeah.

Getting pissed off with a bunch of time wasters who wanna prove you wrong, there'’’s no shame in that.

PHIL: No data was destroyed.

SAM: And that'’’s exactly what you'’’ll say, after you'’’ve acknowledged what you could have done better.

You say it then and people will listen.

It'’’ll sound true.

PHIL: It is true.

NEIL: But I need to believe you when you say it is.

That'’’s all that matters.

♪ RUTH: Right, so, we take a little bit of this and pop it in here.

And then, if you take your finger and poke a nice hole in there.

That'’’s it.

And then, what do you think you do?

LILY: Put an acorn in?

RUTH: Yes, just the one.

LILY: There.

RUTH: Maybe a little bit more.

♪ NEIL: So, a "trick" is just a clever way of doing something.

PHIL: In statistical modeling, yes, or in maths, a short cut.

SAM: It still sounds suspect.

A trick of the trade?

A technique?

PHIL: If you like, a solution to a problem.

NEIL: But nothing more?

PHIL: No.

NEIL: Good.

But then, we get to "hide the decline."

Sent everyone through the roof, this one, hasn'’’t it?

Sarah Palin, the US networks, the papers.

What'’’s your defense?

Because it had better be a bloody good one.

SAM: In as few words as possible, simple and short.

NEIL: And in a way I'’’ll believe it.

PHIL: It'’’s about tree rings.

NEIL: What?

PHIL: Well, the decline.

It isn'’’t about temperatures.

SAM: Go on.

PHIL: To predict the future, we'’’ve got to understand the past.

Hubert Lamb'’’s... NEIL: I'’’m not interested.

Try again.

SAM: Go on, Phil.

PHIL: Temperature records consist of two kinds of measurements.

From around the mid- 19th century, we have actual instrument recordings.

SAM: Try it as a question.

PHIL: How do we obtain measurements from further back, from before we have instrument recordings?

NEIL: Good, I have no idea, educate me.

How do we?

PHIL: We use proxy data.

SAM: Sorry, Phil.

How else might you explain proxy?

What is it?

PHIL: Um...

The natural world has a memory.

It can preserve the physical characteristics of the past.

SAM: Past temperatures?

PHIL: Uh, yes, um and weather events.

NEIL: What kind of characteristics?

PHIL: Well, concentrations of oxygen isotopes in ice, or the composition and annual banding in corals, or the width and the density of annual tree ring growth.

SAM: Tree rings?

PHIL: Yes, [stammering] they'’’re wider in a season of good growth, when it'’’s warmer, and narrower in a season of restricted growth, when it'’’s colder.

NEIL: So, you add this stuff, natural characteristics, to the instrument measurements and you get a record of temperatures stretching back in time before thermometers?

PHIL: It isn'’’t quite that simple.

SAM: Put simply, though, is Neil right?

PHIL: Well, yes.

NEIL: So, what'’’s being hidden, then, in the paper, you were discussing in that email?

PHIL: I was writing about one diagram, not a scientific paper.

NEIL: Phil, split any more hairs and I'’’ll go bald.

SAM: It'’’s okay, Phil.

Just try to answer the question.

What were you hiding?

[satchel falls open] [papers rustling] PHIL: This is the diagram.

The blue line is the hockey stick, the red line is my own similar reconstructions and the green line was produced by my colleague, Keith Briffa, using tree ring density data.

Keith'’’s data produced similar results to my own reconstruction, until 1960, when it began to diverge.

SAM: Diverge?

What do you mean?

PHIL: Well, the real temperatures increase sharply after 1960.

But the tree rings got narrower, less dense, as if the temperature was decreasing, getting colder.

NEIL: Why would they do that?

PHIL: Well, we'’’re not sure.

Acid rain, or the depletion in the ozone layer, but whatever the cause, the tree ring data becomes unreliable after 1960.

NEIL: But if it'’’s unreliable then, how do we know it was any good before?

PHIL: Well, its match to the previous instrument readings was strong and universal all through the 19th and 20th century until 1960.

SAM: But on the graph, there'’’s no divergence?

PHIL: Yes, and I knew that the data became unreliable, so I included only the real temperatures in the green line.

SAM: To hide the decline.

PHIL: In tree ring density.

NEIL: But not the temperature?

PHIL: Well, there was no decline in temperature to hide.

Every thermometer in the world will say the opposite.

The temperatures were rising through that period.

And they still are.

NEIL: Jesus!

They really screwed you over, didn'’’t they?

♪ ♪ [water sloshing] BARRYMORE: Both down?

SAM: Flat out.

BARRYMORE: So, how'’’s he doing, your scientist?

SAM: Not too great, to be honest.

[glass bottles clanking] [door closes] BARRYMORE: And who do you think did this to him?

SAM: The hack?

Who knows?

But whoever'’’s behind what'’’s happened since knows their stuff.

I mean, a few months ago, there was consensus on global warming.

Now, headlines across the world.

BARRYMORE: Could have all just happened?

Might not be anyone behind it at all.

SAM: Some big players have had plans for ages.

Oil companies, especially.

They all want to stop the science getting out there.

Wh... What'’’s so crazy is they knew more about it before anyone else.

All through the '’’80s, they had the best climate scientists, scenario planners.

And these guys, they'’’re telling them, the CEOs, the boards, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, it'’’s going to be a major problem for the whole world.

Extreme weather, food shortages, mass migrations.

BARRYMORE: So what did they do?

[Sam sighs] SAM: I can'’’t believe I'’’m saying this, but they took all that, all that knowledge, which they had more of, in more detail, and earlier than anyone else, and... well, they used it to get ahead of the curve, to come up with strategies to keep the public uncertain, unconcerned.

BARRYMORE: What kind of strategies?

SAM: Front organizations, mostly.

Produce alternative research that backed their message and then pushed it to the media.

BARRYMORE: Ah, PR then.

Marketing.

Like what you do.

SAM: No, Dad.

At least with what I do, you know who'’’s pitching to you.

When I read the projections about what could happen if we don'’’t do anything and when I see those dates, 2040 to 2050.

I can'’’t help thinking how old the girls will be.

What their lives will be like.

BARRYMORE: How do you know all this?

SAM: There'’’s a paper trail.

If you know where to look.

BARRYMORE: You think it'’’s the oil companies, then, stole the emails?

SAM: Oh, Jesus, I don'’’t know, Dad.

It'’’s the internet.

A dark place, filled with darker places.

I just hope we'’’re doing the right thing.

BARRYMORE: Why wouldn'’’t you be?

SAM: This isn'’’t a flagship store, some new trainers.

If we get this wrong it'’’s... it'’’s game over for him.

♪ ♪ ♪ PHIL: Give Lily a birthday kiss from me.

RUTH: Of course.

PHIL: I'’’m....

I'’’m...

I'’’m so sorry, Ruth.

RUTH: You just call me when it'’’s done with that journalist.

♪ ♪ [car door opens] ♪ ♪ [car door closes] ♪ ♪ [Ruth cries] ♪ Oh, God!

♪ Philip!

SAM: Good morning.

NEIL: Morning.

PHIL: Morning.

NEIL: How are you?

PHIL: Good, good, good.

SAM: Are you ready?

PHIL: Yep.

NEIL: You'’’ll be all right.

SAM: Introduce you to Richard.

RUTH: Neil!

NEIL: Thank you, love.

RUTH: They'’’ve done this before, you know.

NEIL: I'’’m sorry?

RUTH: Gone after people.

Scientists.

Just for doing their job.

NEIL: He'’’ll be fine, I promise.

RUTH: I don'’’t want your promises.

I want to be sure you know what you'’’re doing.

NEIL: Yes, we do.

I'’’ve been in this game a long time.

RUTH: But it isn'’’t!

Don'’’t you see that?

Not to us.

NEIL: I'’’m sorry.

RUTH: A game.

NEIL: That'’’s not what I meant.

RUTH: That man in there, the man you'’’re about to let the press at.

NEIL: Yeah.

RUTH: The press who'’’ve dragged him through the mud for months, he'’’s my husband.

A father, a grandfather, someone who'’’s tried to spend his whole life getting closer to the truth.

His work is important.

He is important!

So I bloody well hope you do know what you'’’re doing because this might be just a job to you, but for us, we could lose everything!

Do you understand?

Everything!

[footsteps] [door opens] [footsteps] [door clicks] [feet shuffling] [door closes] [footsteps] RICHARD: Do you have any regrets?

PHIL: Well, I regret that I didn'’’t deal with the Freedom of Information requests in a better way.

I misjudged the situation.

RICHARD: How, exactly?

PHIL: Well, according to the rules, we'’’re supposed to do 18 hours of work on each one before we'’’re allowed to turn it down and, we received 40 over one weekend, all requesting the same data from five different countries.

We were being targeted.

RICHARD: You think they wanted to waste your time?

PHIL: Well, the data was available elsewhere.

They were trying to slow us down, take us away from our work.

RICHARD: And the messages you sent about deleting the data?

PHIL: Well, it wasn'’’t data.

It was emails and, well, that was... frustration.

They were written in anger.

RICHARD: But you did destroy the data?

PHIL: Uh, no, no, no.

It wasn'’’t our data to destroy, it um... We interpret it, we don'’’t create or collect it.

RICHARD: So when the story broke, this was all just before the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen, right?

PHIL: Yes.

RICHARD: Did that worry you?

That your emails might be responsible for undermining the talks two months ago?

PHIL: Yes, yes, it did.

KATE: An opportunity the world cannot afford to miss.

The UN Climate Conference gets under way in Copenhagen.

JON: The mood music is positive and thousands of people have converged on Copenhagen, hoping that some sort of historic deal might be within reach, but there are a whole range of really... REPORTER: Surely, the CRU emails are going to undermine the talks, aren'’’t they?

The UN'’’s chief climate scientist has already said as such.

SIR DAVID: Look, I'’’m a member of the UK negotiating team.

I know how this process works.

These negotiators are grown ups.

They know their science.

Some fabricated scandal is not gonna affect their opinion.

REPORTER: The Saudi negotiator has already said the emails question the validity of this conference.

SIR DAVID: Well, considering he'’’s had breakfast with a different oil company every morning this week, I suppose he would, wouldn'’’t he?

Look, these talks might fail, but it'’’s not gonna be because of some stolen emails.

REPORTER: Any thoughts on who might have stolen the emails?

SIR DAVID: Well, it seems coordinated, so it could be an intelligence operation.

REPORTER: The file was loaded on a server in Tomsk.

Do you think this was Russia?

SIR DAVID: Oh, yes, absolutely.

Well, I have seen first-hand how active they can be in stifling the science of global warming, but equally, it could also be the American oil lobby system.

After all, you know they are the main source of finance behind these sort of things.

REPORTER: So you really think whoever did this wasn'’’t trying to derail the talks?

SIR DAVID: Was it a coincidence that these emails were released just before this COP?

Absolutely not!

But it'’’s public opinion they'’’re trying to influence, not these negotiations.

That'’’s what will affect policy, so no, this conference is not their target, but it is their stage.

JAMES: The hockey stick is shattered beyond repair.

And we'’’re talking about it today because of Climategate.

It'’’s a huge deal.

Don'’’t take my word for it.

Just do an internet search and here'’’s what you find.

George Monbiot in The Guardian, "Pretending this is not a real crisis "isn'’’t going to make it go away.

Phil Jones has got to go."

Christopher Brooker, the UK Telegraph, "This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation."

The scientists involved in the CRU controversy violated fundamental ethical principles, governing taxpayer funded research.

And in some cases, may have violated federal laws.

Now, for this reason, I am calling for the following key players to be investigated with possible referral to the US Justice Department for prosecution, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa... [waves crashing] [waves crashing] [waves crashing] RICHARD: And, some of these messages you received, were they death threats?

PHIL: Yes.

RICHARD: And if you don'’’t mind me asking, what would they say, exactly?

PHIL: Well, that they knew where I lived.

That I should kill myself.

And if I didn'’’t, they'’’d do it for me.

RICHARD: And did um... did you ever think about that?

About suicide?

PHIL: Yes.

Several times.

RICHARD: And what, I know this is difficult.

But what stopped you?

PHIL: [crying] Lily.

Lily.

[Phil cries] [waves crashing] [Lily giggles] ♪ ANITA: Think, Mrs. Jones, somewhere he goes regularly to, you know, mull over stuff, or to get away from things?

RUTH: No.

No, not without.

Philip?

[Ruth breathes heavily] [car engine idling] [car door opens] ♪ You.

[Ruth cries] All right, all right.

All right, I'’’ve got you.

I'’’ve got you.

RUTH: How did it go?

What did you tell them?

PHIL: Oh, just everything that we talked about.

RUTH: Good.

PHIL: And er.. RUTH: And what, Philip?

PHIL: [stammering] Well, and um, about when I went, when I didn'’’t, you know.

RUTH: When'’’s it going out?

PHIL: Tomorrow.

Well, I mean, I can.

LILY: Grandma!

Grandma!

PHIL: I'’’m sure they won'’’t use it.

Do you want me to call Neil?

I can tell him that.

RUTH: I'’’m going to have to warn Matthew.

PHIL: Why?

Ruth, why?

RUTH: Because now they'’’ll know you'’’ve got a granddaughter.

Those people.

They'’’ll know about Lily.

You call Neil and we'’’ll speak later.

PHIL: Wha... but... [phone beeps] [waves crashing] SAM: You didn'’’t ask them to remove the suicide stuff?

NEIL: It'’’s the best bit.

Takes the heat off Phil for a week or two.

Puts a face to it.

A life.

Reminds people he'’’s a person, a grandfather.

That'’’s what we need before the hearing.

[Sam sighs] ♪ ♪ SAM: What about the hack?

Who did this?

How did they do it?

Why did they do it?

I mean, where are the interviews with the security correspondents, cyber experts?

NEIL: Not the story.

SAM: Since when is the crime not the story?

NEIL: When what it'’’s achieved is more interesting.

[footsteps] SAM: Have you seen these poll figures from the US, conducted in the months after the leak went viral?

NEIL: "59% of Americans say scientists "have falsified research data "to support their beliefs about global warming.

Only 26% take the opposite view."

SAM: It'’’s worked, hasn'’’t it?

NEIL: Yeah.

What we need is a proper deflection, someone to point the finger at.

A likely suspect for who did the hack, or who was behind it.

[footsteps] GARETH: The hacker gave the emails file names, linked to the date and time that the email was sent.

They must have written a program to extract the date and time from the text and a tool to convert that to the number of seconds elapsed.

If the times when the email was sent and the time zone on the computer the hacker was using to process the emails differed, then the file name generated would be incorrect.

For example, an email sent from Greenwich Mean Time would give us an error of five hours.

Now, this five hour mismatch could be later, placing the location in this time zone, Russia and Pakistan, or earlier, in this location, on the East Coast of America.

Now, emails from this time zone give us an error of zero hours.

OFFICER: Indicating that'’’s where the emails were processed?

East Coast of the US?

GARETH: Yes.

OFFICER: Well, that'’’s gonna go down well, isn'’’t it?

GARETH: Now, it is possible that the hacker reset his computer to avoid detection.

OFFICER: What'’’s GCHQ'’’s input?

JULIAN: They confirm the Department of Energy and Climate Change has been an intelligence collection target for China and Russia, but in terms of active state action and these kind of tactics, in this area.

OFFICER: Why do the dirty work yourself, if you can pull the strings remotely?

Smart.

And if we follow the money, where does that take us?

JULIAN: Well, Russia does have a huge oil industry.

And with the melting of the ice caps, it is looking to exploit the Arctic, but, uh... GARETH: Yes, if you really want to follow the money, it takes us back here, to the US.

Oil lobbies.

Exxon, Koch Brothers.

They'’’re the ones with real skin in the game.

OFFICER: Someone out there knows who did this.

Who the gun-for- hire hacker was and who was paying them.

How the hell are we meant to find them, if the internet makes a joke of the search?

♪ NEIL: Okay, let'’’s try again.

Like this.

The facts are this.

PHIL: The facts are this.

NEIL: This is a House of Commons select committee.

They'’’ll be out for meat.

You'’’ve got to get them on side.

You do know what'’’s at stake here?

[Neil sighs] What I don'’’t get is, this is all you'’’ve ever done.

For the last 30 years, you'’’ve stuck it out, you'’’ve been loyal, whatever.

This has been your life!

I mean, don'’’t you care?

PHIL: Yes.

NEIL: What?

PHIL: Yes, I do care!

SAM: Maybe.

[door slams] Phil.

Phil?

[door slams] [door clicks] PHIL: What do you want me not to say?

NEIL: I don'’’t want you not to say anything.

I just want you to tell the truth.

SAM: But in a way that it can be understood.

Short answers.

No jargon.

Why does this all matter?

PHIL: What?

Well.

Because what'’’s... what they... Because it isn'’’t true.

SAM: Right.

But beyond that?

What happens if they win?

What happens if everyone ignores your measurements, your graphs?

PHIL: Well.

I suppose we'’’ll just carry on emitting more greenhouse gases.

Global temperatures will continue to increase.

SAM: And if we do that, what actually happens?

PHIL: Well, the projection hasn'’’t changed.

It'’’s still the same.

SAM: The same as what?

PHIL: As when US scientists first studied it in the '’’70s.

NEIL: Go on.

PHIL: Well, a doubling of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere will result in a 1.5 to 4.5 degree increase.

NEIL: In what?

PHIL: Average surface temperature.

Polar amplification will mean that melting in the poles will be greater.

Maybe as much as 10 degrees.

SAM: What happens, Phil, for our children and their children?

No numbers, just the consequences.

PHIL: Well.

By 2100, dust bowl conditions across North America and Africa, Asia too.

Sooner than that, a massive reduction in agricultural production, access to drinking water, migration in huge numbers.

Um... Bushfires on a massive scale in Australia, the West Coast.

And well, melting at the poles, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, well, because of that, the global sea level rise of, well, meters.

NEIL: But what does that all mean for us?

People.

Make me see it, Phil.

PHIL: Well, in this worst case scenario, 70% of the habitable world will no longer be able to sustain human life.

Millions of species will become extinct.

And coastal and delta cities will be underwater.

And, well, if the methane in the permafrost and on the seabed is released, well... NEIL: Yes?

PHIL: The climate will collapse.

And the world as we know it will be gone.

NEIL: Now, we know there are some people out there who think everything you'’’ve just said is bollocks.

Maybe even some of the hearing committee, who knows?

But if you can remember everything you just said when you'’’re answering them, no matter how dry those answers are, then we don'’’t have to worry about it.

[Phil breathes audibly] Let'’’s take a break.

Anything?

SAM: It'’’s the same names cropping up again and again.

With tobacco in the '’’70s, acid rain in the '’’80s, and now with global warming.

It'’’s not just the same strategy, it'’’s the same bloody people.

But all this now with Phil, the emails, it'’’s just... NEIL: The latest battle in a longer war.

It always is, son.

You'’’ll come to see that.

It always is.

[footsteps] They'’’re gonna tear him apart.

SAM: We'’’ve still got a couple more days.

NEIL: We'’’ll have to rehearse the hell out of him.

Choreograph it step by step.

SAM: Royal Ballet will have nothing on us by the time we'’’re done.

[footsteps] [door opens and closes] [Sam sighs] ♪ SAM: So why not release the data?

Shouldn'’’t everyone get to see it?

NEIL: Don'’’t focus on how you feel, focus on how you come across.

How is someone sitting there on the other side seeing you?

SAM: The select committee hearing is your only chance to defend yourself.

NEIL: So, how is that right, to stop other scientists publishing their findings?

Weren'’’t you just using your position to quash other opinions?

SAM: Yes or no, did you ask your colleagues to delete emails?

PHIL: There was no manipulation, yup.

NEIL: So you'’’ve been manipulating the historic records, is that right?

PHIL: So, there was no manipulation, just adjustment in the pursuit of accuracy because that'’’s how science works.

That'’’s how we get to the truth.

[all clapping] SAM: Well done, Phil, well done!

RUTH: How are you feeling?

[Phil sighs] Just show them who you are.

PHIL: What else can I do?

RUTH: No, I... Do you remember when we first met?

PHIL: In the halls of residence?

RUTH: I was playing darts and your room was on the other side of the wall.

You came out to ask us to be quiet.

PHIL: It was distracting.

RUTH: I know.

The way you asked us, the way you carried yourself.

I could tell straight away, here was a good man.

A kind man.

A man of integrity.

All the pieces of that man are still here, Philip, which means so is he.

That'’’s who I want you to show them.

♪ ♪ SAM: You'’’ll be fine, Phil.

Watch your shoe.

NEIL: Here we are.

Okay, so, good luck gentlemen.

TREVOR: You'’’re not coming in?

NEIL: Not gonna help your cause if the press see me in there.

Keep to the brief.

SAM: Good luck.

SUSAN: This is the only day of verbal evidence for the select committee and they'’’re keen to hear from their star witness, the former head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the subject of many of those emails, Phil Jones.

This is the first time he'’’s come under close public scrutiny.

CHAIRMAN: So, shall we begin, Professor Jones, Professor Acton?

EDWARD: Thank you.

I do have a general statement I'’’d like to make.

CHAIRMAN: No, no general statements, please.

NEIL: Oh, Jesus!

CHAIRMAN: Just answer the questions when you'’’re asked them.

Perhaps I could just go back to one of Lord Lawson'’’s earlier comments.

ANITA: What did I miss?

CHAIRMAN: That without an understanding of the methodology, that the peer review system is rather defunct?

PHIL: Well, the um... [clears his throat] the methods are published in the scientific papers, [stammering] they'’’re relatively simple.

There'’’s nothing sort of rocket science about them.

GRAHAM: Can you explain your email exchange on the 21st of January 2005, when you say you aren'’’t going to... SIR DAVID: How are they doing?

CHRIS: Not bad.

GRAHAM: Find something wrong with it?

That'’’s the nature of scientific pursuits, isn'’’t it?

PHIL: Yes, well, I'’’ve obviously written some very awful emails.

[others laughing] [car engine idling] TREVOR: Let'’’s get you home.

[car door closes] [door clicks] [keys jangling] [door closes] ♪ ♪ [door clicks open] ♪ ♪ [door closes] ♪ ♪ ♪ RUTH: You found him.

♪ [Ruth sighs] ♪ EDWARD: To look at the key works of CRU, to reaffirm the sure-fire quality of the science and may I end by saying just how proud I am of the contribution that UEA and CRU in particular has made to humanity'’’s ability to understand climate change.

[TV clicks off] STELLA: So, what happens now?

EDWARD: We wait.

[door closes] We wait.

♪ ♪ EDWARD: Ah, Trevor.

Do you know what time the select committee will publish their report?

TREVOR: Some time in the morning, so they said.

EDWARD: Right.

[footsteps] TREVOR: Are you familiar with the Fermi paradox the contradiction of lack of evidence for alien life, and considering the size and age of the universe, the high possibility of its existence?

EDWARD: Yes, yes.

The great science.

TREVOR: Yeah.

I read a paper yesterday that suggested climate change might be the answer.

There have perhaps been other civilizations, thousands, but they all did what we'’’re doing now, became more and more advanced and in doing so... EDWARD: Yes, I see.

TREVOR: Burnt themselves out.

Bright and brief.

It does make you wonder, doesn'’’t it, whether if all this we'’’re fighting against is, well, possibly what we'’’re meant to do?

[Trevor giggles] EDWARD: I'’’ll admit humanity does have something of a gift for normalizing great change, even when it threatens us.

But we do also have a gift for survival against predators, disease, dictators.

We do somehow survive.

TREVOR: Even if how we live is the danger?

EDWARD: You have to hope so, don'’’t you?

Goodnight, Trevor.

[footsteps] [footsteps] [birds chirping] [pamphlet shuffling] [pamphlet opens] [birds chirping] [footsteps] RUTH: "The focus on Professor Phil Jones and CRU has been mis... has been misplaced."

"Within the inquiry, and the evidence we took, "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones "and CRU remains intact.

"We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode "to challenge the scientific consensus "that global warming is happening "and is induced by human activity.

"In so far as we'’’ve been able to consider "accusations of dishonesty, "for example, Professor Jones'’’ alleged attempt "to hide the decline, we consider there isn'’’t.

There is no case to answer."

[birds chirping] [rustles pamphlet] [Ruth sniffles] [closes pamphlet] EDWARD: ...the work done by CRU and have no doubt that for all of us, our children and our grandchildren, Phil Jones was and is the right man in the right place at the right time.

Phil Jones.

ALL: Phil Jones.

RUTH: All the other reports reached the same conclusion.

There were seven, in total, by the end.

Even one that no one knew about, the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

A manufactured controversy, that'’’s what they called it.

For us though, it didn'’’t feel like we could even begin to move on until two years later when this big project in California happened.

Berkeley Earth, it was called, set up to prove Philip'’’s work was wrong.

Anyway, they took all the data CRU had used and started from scratch.

With some known skeptics on the team too, even Steve Mosher, the man who first picked out those extracts.

"The trick," "hide the decline."

Even him.

And what do you know?

Came up with the same results as Philip.

The same results.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [footsteps] SAM: Phil...

It'’’s... PHIL: Sam.

I remember.

SAM: How are you?

PHIL: I'’’m very good.

Yes, good, good.

SAM: Yeah.

PHIL: Oh, this is me.

SAM: Good to see you.

PHIL: And you, Sam, yeah.

SAM: Yeah, take care.

PHIL: Yeah, and you.

♪ ♪ [train wheels squeeling] ♪ ♪ [train wheels squeeling] ♪ PHIL: Everything that happened back then, the hacking, other campaigns, it had a significant effect on public opinion.

Cost us between eight to 10 years, according to some studies.

A decade, so, yes, we could have had 20 years to sort this out, but now, we'’’ve only got around 10.

If that.

And who'’’s pushing hardest for action?

The children, people Lily'’’s age, which does give me some hope.

They understand, you see, what needs to be done.

SAM: Try and be safe.

PHIL: And who knows?

ROSE: Bye Dad.

PHIL: If it only took one generation to break the planet, why can'’’t it take just one to fix it?

I know we should have more time, but at least we do still have time.

Just.

♪ ANNOUNCER: To order The Trick on DVD Visit ShopPBS or call 1-800-PLAY-PBS This program is also available on Amazon Prime Video ♪