All language subtitles for The Trick (2021).eng

Wait.

There we go.

Lily, careful there.

Sorry, Grandad.

- Ready?
- Yes, ready.

- Okay.
- Ready, Lily?

Here I come!

Run!

I can't believe you're
still doing that.

Whee!

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.

Go on, then.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'll call you to let
you know when I'm back.

You're a star, Dad, thanks.

Right, kid.

Where the hell are you?

The train leaves in two minutes.

Shit.

Sorry.

- I had to sort out the kids.
- Right.

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

The University of East
Anglia's Climategate

email controversy.

- Climategate.
- Climategate.

The Climategate scandal.

Scientists are using
words like trick.

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?

At worst it's junk science
and it is a part of a massive,

international, scientific fraud.

It's a communications
consultancy.

Crisis management.

Neil Wallis, ex-editor
of a Sunday tabloid

and his colleague Sam Bowen.

Sam's background is more
corporate public relations.

Can we trust them?

I think we have to.

We're running out of time.

They're accusing
him of fraud, Ruth.

How is Phil?

You haven't seen a
select committee hearing?

No.

It's no walk in the park.

Eight people right
there in front of you

and trying to put
you on a skewer.

Right.

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.

So we've got one shot at it?

To clear their names?

And three weeks to do it.

Skulduggery,
scientific espionage

and black propaganda.

Have scientists really
been manipulating the data?

They claim to be victims
of a crime, right?

They are.

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.

I suppose they
don't know, do they?

What?

If they are innocent or
if Jones did rig the data

to exaggerate the
increase in temperatures?

Exactly, everyone is terrified
they're guilty as charged.

Maybe they're right to be.

Tonight faces
forensic examination.

The temperature
graphs at the heart

of concern of about
climate change

will now be picked
over by experts.

Edward Acton, Vice-Chancellor.

Neil Wallis, Sam Bowen.

Pleased to meet you.

This is my co-Vice-Chancellor,
Trevor Davies.

Trevor.

Former director of the
Climatic Research Unit,

also known as CRU.

Three months ago.

When you were hacked?

No.

The hacking itself was
some months before.

We only became aware of it

when the hacker
uploaded the file to...

- What was it called again?
- Realclimate.org.

The university learned
about it the following day.

And you, Phil.

Is that when you found out?

I...

Yes, that's when
we found out too.

And what was your response

once you knew
there'd been a hack?

We informed the police

and told them there had
been an IT system breach.

A data theft.

I think that's the
phrase that was used.

Goodnight.

Goodnight.

Thank you, Stella.

You're very welcome.

These are the press
office documents

and I've had made this for you,
it's the broadcast coverage.

Good.

We'll take a look
at that tonight.

Isn't it rather late?

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

Yes.

The clock is ticking, Edward,

so yeah, we'll be
working tonight.

I see, good.

Good.

Jesus, they weren't joking.

He's broken.

Yep.

Do you think he...?

He did it?

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

If he was innocent.

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

I do corporate.

Branding.

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.

Okay, thanks for
coming, everyone.

Thank you.

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.

The Cat A status,

sorry, boss, but
who's been murdered?

No-one, DS Suppiah.

So the only crime
that we're invest...

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 Suppiah, a word.

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.

The stolen emails are
mostly conversations

between colleagues, climate
scientists, here and in the US.

And these conversations,

they've been taken wholesale?

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.

He's receiving the
link, he's not?

He's not sending it?

Yeah, but he's got
history with Jones.

Mclntyre 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.

Which Jones gave him?

Yeah, initially.

But then, McIntyre started
using it to criticize Jones,

to undermine his career,
Jones backed off.

Mclntyre, 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.

- Which they did.
- Yeah.

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

60 in one week, look.

It's a bloody tsunami.

Annoying, but not illegal.

Yes, but that's where
it gets interesting.

Our initial analysis of the
hard drives and servers suggests

that the unit was
hacked several times

between that same time period.

Are you saying there was
more than one breach?

Not only that.

Mclntyre's requests were formally
refused by the university.

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

I have not falsified any data!

Collusion?

They can't argue with the facts.

But that's what they
do all the time!

Do you really
think this is them?

Well, of course it's them!

I'm sorry.

I haven't done
anything wrong, Ruth.

Are you suggesting that
McIntyre was responsible?

No.

It was a relatively
sophisticated attack,

he wouldn't have the capability.

But there was a coordination.

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."

And these are the extracts
that are penetrating now?

Yeah.

It's a very effective selection.

Mosher knew exactly
what he was doing.

Have your comms team
got Phil's comment

on why he used the word trick?

Already on the website,

along with an
acknowledgement of the hack.

Look, I think we should do more,

defend the science.

We'd be inviting an attack.

I'm telling you, there's
an established history.

It's a bunch of
bloggers, Trevor.

Just let them burn the story
out amongst themselves.

There was a piece
in the Guardian,

and surely, it's quite.

Our defense would only
raise more questions,

give the story oxygen.

We don't want the science
questioned, either.

Look.

If we can get
through the weekend

without the "Today"
program calling us,

I really think
we'll be fine, okay?

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."

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 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 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...

It's just, we really
need some clarity,

especially on why some
of the temperature data

can't be released to the public.

Shell.

"Dear Phil Jones, you
should kill yourself.

You lying prick, arsehole.

And if you don't, I'll be more
than happy to do it for you

and your family."

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.
- I know, believe me, I know.

Even his voice has
changed, Trevor.

Like it's stuck in his throat.

Are you and Grandad coming
to my school play, Granny?

Of course, sweetheart.

It might just be
Granny this time.

Okay.

Okay.

- Bye.
- Bye.

Bye, Granny, see you soon, bye.

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."

The press inquiries haven't
stopped all morning,

it's unprecedented.

Like nothing
anyone's seen before.

- And from the US now to.
- What is it they want,

- specifically?
- 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.

I'm afraid that's not
gonna be possible.

Well, surely you don't stand

by his comments on the website?

- Yeah.
- Why isn't Phil available?

It would be the clearest
way to set things straight.

I agree.

I went round there this morning

after the Lawson interview.

The man's struggling.

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!

Did you?

Yeah!

You're going to have
to speak up, Philip.

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.

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.

Thanks, Chris.

Any help in releasing the
data is hugely appreciated.

We were wondering
if your department

could give a statement to.

I'll see what I can do.

We really need help
on this one, Chris.

Trevor, sorry, look,
I've got to go.

Sir David, have you
seen the CRU fallout?

Christ, haven't I?

What the bloody hell
were they thinking about?

I mean, I wouldn't accept
such loose practices

from my students.

Well, siege mentality.

I mean, the deniers have
had them in their sights

- for as long as I can remember.
- 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.

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

What do you mean?

Well, CRU built
its models on data

from meteorological services.

And sometimes, that data comes

with nondisclosure agreements.

Sir David King, School of
Enterprise and the Environment,

Oxford University.

Thanks very much.

I've been on the phone all
morning to the Met Office,

putting pressure on
them to give clearance

to release all the data.

- And?
- Not yet.

Any news about the hack?

Nothing I've heard.

Any thoughts?

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.

I don't understand why
everyone expects science models

to be perfect.

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

No, that's because
nobody's trying

to undermine the economics.

Do you really think it will
affect the COP in Copenhagen?

Well, it might scare
the horses a bit,

but no, this COP is dead
in the water anyway.

- You really think so?
- Come on, Chris.

I mean, the USA 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.

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.

There are more stolen emails.

I'm saying there's a lot more.

- Almost 200,000 in total.
- Shit!

200?

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.

What are you saying?

Well, it means that CRU
wasn't the only climate unit

that was attacked.

There were more hacks?

Attempts.

CRU was the only
successful breach.

What were the other attempts?

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.

And when, when was all this?

This is all in the
last 12 months.

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?

I realize this
must be upsetting.

No one's getting the truth.

Just what they read,
what they hear.

Where are you going?

Just down to the station.

- We just.
- Why?

We need to print the statement

and have it signed immediately.

Well, use our bloody printer!

Ruth, it's fine.

We'll be 30 minutes, I promise.

This hockey stick graph,

the one that you mention
in the interview,

why is it so important exactly?

Well, it's a reconstruction
of global temperature,

a window into the past, I
suppose, back 1,000 years.

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.

This is your work?

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.

Wow.

From before we had
thermometer readings,

historical, records,
ships' logs.

And then even further back,

proxy data, such as tree rings

- and ice cores.
- I saw the tree rings

on the walls of your office.

They're beautiful.

Well, all of that,

the proxy and historical
data goes into the graph.

It helps make the past

readable.

Best get you home, yeah.

Thank you.

Who's doing this, 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.

The one showing the rise
in global temperatures?

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.

Crafty buggers.

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.

Or wants to.

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

Relief?

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.

Which was when, exactly?

Oh, late '80s.

So those campaigns essentially,

they bought themselves
time with those millions.

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.

They've had 20 years
to prepare for this.

We've had days.

We need crisis
management advice.

It's a straight choice.

Duck it or fight it.

But how do we fight it
if the world wants Phil

and the data and we
can't provide either.

Okay, well, if Phil
can't do the interviews,

then you have to.

What about the
independent inquiry?

No one gets hacked
for the sake of it.

There's always intent.

The UN Climate
Conference, the COP,

it opens next week, right?

Yes.

So, it's a strategy.

Someone's decided to
take positive action to.

We don't actually know
if that's the case.

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.

Mm.

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.

No.

Never with the internet.

The blocks.

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.

It's gonna be hard
for you to go on TV

and come across as likable.

Yes.

Yes, I see.

It's your only choice.

Do nothing now,

that's as good as being guilty.

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...

You shouldn't be watching that.

Why not?

It's what I've done.

That's not true.

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.
- 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.

You're forgetting something.

What?

Not everyone wants the
truth to reach them.

So, what do you think?

I think they're screwed.

The blogs I get and the
American right wing networks,

but the mainstream media
following their lead.

The BBC, for Christ's sake!

Which is why we need
to get him out there.

Phil?

We need to put a
human face on this,

before the House
of Commons hearing.

Get the public back on our side.

He could barely talk.

Which is why it has to be print.

No TV.

You're serious?

We'll have to coach him.

"Sunday Times," front page.

Do you think they'll take it?

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.

So we throw them to the lions.

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.

- Are you sure this is the right?
- I'm positive.

Unless you wanna cut him loose.

Out of the question.

Well, I had to check.

Because if it's the
reputation of the university

- you're trying to save here.
- It isn't.

- It isn't?
- Well, yes, it is,

but that's no
longer the priority.

This is about more than
the university now.

Much more.

The science?

- The truth.
- Right.

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.

Mea culpa.

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

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.

But those requests,
they weren't genuine.

- Yes, we know.
- The data was already.

But admitting that
you got frustrated,

you could have
handled it better,

- that's very relatable.
- Yeah.

Getting pissed off with
a bunch of time wasters

who wanna prove you wrong,
there's no shame in that.

No data was destroyed.

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.

It is true.

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

That's all that matters.

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?

- Put an acorn in?
- Yes, just the one.

- There.
- Maybe a little bit more.

So, a trick is just a clever
way of doing something.

In statistical modeling,
yes, or in maths,

- a short cut.
- It still sounds suspect.

A trick of the trade?

- A technique?
- If you like,

- a solution to a problem.
- But nothing more?

No.

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.

In as few words as
possible, simple and short.

And in a way I'll believe it.

It's about tree rings.

What?

Well, the decline.

It isn't about temperatures.

Go on.

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

- Hubert Lamb's.
- I'm not interested.

Try again.

Go on, Phil.

Temperature records consist
of two kinds of measurements.

From around the
mid 19th century,

we have actual
instrument recordings.

Try it as a question.

How do we obtain measurements
from further back,

from before we have
instrument recordings?

Good, I have no
idea, educate me.

How do we?

- We use proxy data.
- Sorry, Phil.

How else might
you explain proxy?

What is it?

The natural world has a memory.

It can preserve the physical
characteristics of the past.

Past temperatures?

Yes and weather events.

What kind of characteristics?

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.

Tree rings?

Yes, 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.

So, you add this stuff,
natural characteristics,

to the instrument measurements
and you get a record

of temperatures stretching back
in time before thermometers?

It isn't quite that simple.

Put simply, though,
is Neil right?

Well, yes.

So, what's being hidden,
then, in the paper,

you were discussing
in that email?

I was writing about one diagram,

not a scientific paper.

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

It's okay, Phil.

Just try to answer the question.

What were you hiding?

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.

Diverge?

What do you mean?

Well, the real temperatures
increase sharply after 1960.

But the tree rings got
narrower, less dense,

as if the temperature was
decreasing, getting colder.

Why would they do that?

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.

But if it's unreliable then,

how do we know it
was any good before?

Its match to previous
instrument readings were strong

and universal all
through the 19th

and 20th century until 1960.

But on the graph,
there's no divergence?

Yes, and

I knew that the data
became unreliable,

so I included only the real
temperatures in the green line.

To hide the decline.

In tree ring density.

But not the temperature?

Well, there was no decline
in temperature to hide.

Every thermometer in the
world will say the opposite.

The temperatures were rising
all through that period.

And they still are.

Jesus!

They really screwed
you over, didn't they?

Both down?

Flat out.

So, how's he doing,
your scientist?

Not too great, to be honest.

And who do you think
did this to him?

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.

Could have all just happened?

Might not be anyone
behind it at all.

Some big players have
had plans for ages.

Oil companies, especially.

They all want to stop the
science getting out there.

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.

So what did they do?

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.

What kind of strategies?

Front organizations, mostly.

Produce alternative research
that backed their message

and then pushed it to the media.

Ah, PR then.

Marketing.

Like what you do.

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.

How do you know all this?

There's a paper trail.

If you know where to look.

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

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.

Why wouldn't you be?

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

If we get this wrong,

it's game over for him.

Give Lily a birthday
kiss from me.

Of course.

I'm so sorry, Ruth.

You just call me when it's done

with that journalist.

Oh, God!

Philip!

- Good morning.
- Morning.

Morning.

- How are you?
- Good, good, good.

- Are you ready?
- Yep.

You're gonna be all right.

I'll introduce you to Richard.

Neil!

Thank you, love.

They've done this
before, you know.

- I'm sorry?
- Gone after people.

Scientists.

Just for doing their job.

He'll be fine, I promise.

I don't want your promises.

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

Yes, we do.

I've been in this
game a long time.

But it isn't!

Don't you see that?

Not to us.

- I'm sorry.
- A game.

- That's not what I meant.
- That man in there,

the man you're about
to let the press at.

- Yeah.
- 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!

Do you have any regrets?

Well, I regret
that I didn't deal

with the Freedom of Information
request in a better way.

I misjudged the situation.

How, exactly?

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.

You think they wanted
to waste your time?

Well, the data was
available elsewhere.

They were trying
to slow us down,

take us away from our work.

And the messages you sent
about deleting the data?

Well,

it wasn't data.

It was emails and,

well, that was

frustration.

They were written in anger.

But you did destroy the data?

No.

It wasn't our data to destroy.

We interpret it, we don't
create or collect it.

So when the story broke,

this was all just before
the UN Climate Conference

- in Copenhagen, right?
- Yes.

Did that worry you?

That your emails
might be responsible

for undermining the
talks two months ago?

Yes, yes, it did.

An opportunity the world

cannot afford to miss.

The UN Climate Conference
gets under way in Copenhagen.

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.

Surely,

the CRU emails are going
to undermine the talks,

aren't they?

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

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.

The Saudi negotiator
has already said

the emails question the
validity of this conference.

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.

Any thoughts on who might
have stolen the emails?

Well, it seems coordinated,

so it could be an
intelligence operation.

The file was loaded
on a server in Tomsk.

Do you think this was Russia?

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, they are the
main source of finance

behind these sort of things.

So you really think
whoever did this

wasn't trying to
derail the talks?

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.

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.

And, some of these
messages you received,

were they death threats?

Yes.

And if you don't mind me asking,

what would they say, exactly?

Well, that they
knew where I lived.

That I should kill myself.

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

And did,

did you ever think about that?

About suicide?

Yes.

Several times.

And what,

I know this is difficult.

But what stopped you?

Lily.

Lily.

Think, Mrs Jones, somewhere
he goes regularly to,

you know, mull over stuff,
or to get away from things?

No.

No, not without.

Philip?

You.

All right, all right.

All right, I've got you.

I've got you.

How did it go?

What did you tell them?

Oh, just everything
that we talked about.

- Good.
- And er..

And what, Philip?

Well, and um,

about when I went,

when I didn't, you know.

When's it going out?

Tomorrow.

Well, I mean, I can.

- Nana!
- I'm sure they won't use it.

Do you want me to call Neil?

- I can tell him that.
- I'm going

- to have to warn Matthew.
- Why?

Ruth, why?

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.

You didn't ask them to
remove the suicide stuff?

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.

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?

Not the story.

Since when is the
crime not the story?

When what it's achieved
is more interesting.

Have you seen these poll
figures from the US,

conducted in the months
after the leak went viral?

"59% of Americans say scientists

have falsified research data
to support their beliefs

about global warming.

Only 26% take the
opposite view."

It's worked, hasn't it?

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.

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.

Indicating that's where
the emails were processed?

East Coast of the US?

Yes.

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

Now, it is possible

that the hacker reset his
computer to avoid detection.

What's GCHQ's input?

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.

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?

Well, Russia does have
a huge oil industry.

And with the melting
of the ice caps,

it is looking to
exploit the Arctic, but.

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.

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?

Okay, let's try again.

Like this.

The facts are this.

The facts are this.

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?

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?

Yes.

What?

Yes, I do care!

Maybe.

Phil.

Phil?

What do you want me not to say?

I don't want you
not to say anything.

I just want you
to tell the truth.

But in a way that it
can be understood.

Short answers.

No jargon.

Why does this all matter?

What?

Well.

Because what they...

Because it isn't true.

Right.

But beyond that?

What happens if they win?

What happens if everyone
ignores your measurements,

your graphs?

Well.

I suppose we'll just carry on

emitting more greenhouse gases.

Global temperatures will
continue to increase.

And if we do that,
what actually happens?

Well, the projection
hasn't changed.

It's still the same.

The same as what?

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

Go on.

Well, a doubling of CO2
emissions in the atmosphere

will result in a 1.5
to 4.5 degree increase.

In what?

Average surface temperature.

Polar amplification will mean

that melting in the
poles will be greater.

Maybe as much as 10 degrees.

What happens, Phil,

for our children
and their children?

No numbers, just
the consequences.

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.

Bushfires on a massive
scale in Australia,

the West Coast.

Annual melting at the poles,

the West Antarctic ice sheet,

well, because of that,

the global sea
level rise of, well,

meters.

But what does that
all mean for us?

People.

Make me see it, 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.

Yes?

The climate will collapse.

And the world as we
know it will be gone.

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.

Let's take a break.

Anything?

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.

The latest battle
in a longer war.

It always is, son.

You'll come to see that.

It always is.

They're gonna tear him apart.

We've still got a
couple more days.

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

Choreograph it step by step.

Royal Ballet will
have nothing on us

by the time we're done.

So why not release the data?

Shouldn't everyone
get to see it?

Don't focus on how you feel,

focus on how you come across.

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

The select committee
hearing is your only chance

to defend yourself.

So, how is that right,

to stop other scientists
publishing their findings?

Weren't you just
using your position

to quash other opinions?

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

There was no manipulation, yup.

So you've been manipulating
the historic records,

is that right?

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.

Well done, Phil, well done!

How are you feeling?

Just show them who you are.

- What else can I do?
- No, I...

Do you remember
when we first met?

In the halls of residence?

I was playing darts

and your room was on the
other side of the wall.

You came out to
ask us to be quiet.

- It was distracting.
- 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.

You'll be fine, Phil.

Watch your shoe.

Here we are.

Okay, so, good luck gentlemen.

You're not coming in?

Not gonna help your cause

if the press see me in there.

- Keep to the brief.
- Good luck.

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.

So, shall we begin,

Professor Jones,
Professor Acton?

Thank you.

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

No, no general
statements, please.

- Oh, Jesus!
- Just answer

the questions when
you're asked them.

Perhaps I could just go back

to one of Lord Lawson's
earlier comments.

What did I miss?

That without an understanding
of the methodology,

that the peer review
system is rather defunct?

Well, the methods are published

in the scientific papers,

that relatively simple.

There's nothing sort of
rocket science about them.

Can you explain
your email exchange

on the 21st of January 2005,

when you say you
aren't going to.

How are they doing?

Not bad.

Find something wrong with it?

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

Well, I've obviously written
some very awful emails.

Let's get you home.

You found him.

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.

So, what happens now?

We wait.

We wait.

Ah, Trevor.

Do you know what time
the select committee

will publish their report?

Some time in the
morning, so they said.

Right.

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?

Yes, yes.

- The great science.
- 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.

- Yes, I see.
- Burnt themselves out.

Bright and brief.

It does make you
wonder, doesn't it,

if all this we're
fighting against is, well,

possibly what we're meant to do?

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.

Even if how we
live is the danger?

You have to hope so, don't you?

Goodnight, Trevor.

"The focus on Professor Phil
Jones and CRU has been,"

"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 is."

"There is no case to answer."

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.

- Phil Jones.
- Phil Jones.

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.

Phil.

- It's.
- Sam.

I remember.

How are you?

I'm very good.

- Yes, good, good.
- Yeah.

Oh, this is me.

Good to see you.

And you, Sam, yeah.

- Yeah, take care.
- Yeah, and you.

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.

And who knows?

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.