 Well, here we are in Paris where we launched our investigation into climate sceptics a few days ago. The whole thing started actually, I'd say about five months ago, when we were discussing how to bring the issue of climate sceptics into these Paris talks, expecting that they would try to get a lot of publicity, Lord Lawson and that kind of thing. And we really wanted to expose them. We felt for some time that there was a kind of market for climate science unpaid for by fossil fuel interests, and we wanted to see whether prominent climate sceptics would be willing to write reports for fossil fuel interests, and whether they would be willing to hide that funding from the public. So we set up a fake PR company in Beirut purporting to represent a Middle East oil and gas company. We went to one individual who's very much at the senior levels of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and we put this to him. We said, would you write a climate sceptic report espousing the virtues of CO2? We're a Middle Eastern oil company, but we want to keep that secret from the public. Are you okay with that? Frankly, I was surprised by how easy it was. He said yes. He didn't even ask the name of this oil company. And what was the next thing? Did you actually get in contact with some scientists? We spoke at length to Professor Harper via email. He's the individual from Princeton, who's an academic advisor at the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He then agreed to take the money to write the report. He knew we were a Middle Eastern oil company. He agreed to keep that secret from the public. And then he passed us through various people who he said were able to help us get the money. And he was very clear that he wanted the money not to go to himself, but anti-climate action campaigners at the CO2 coalition where he's a senior member. So he wanted the money for his report to go into that campaign group. The people who we spoke to, who he recommended that we speak to, who could facilitate the passing over of that cash, were very clear. We told them we're a Middle Eastern oil company, we want to keep it secret. And they said that's absolutely no problem whatsoever. So I think to a certain extent, our investigation really begs the question, down the years, how many other of these scientific reports that have confused the public on climate change have in fact been paid for by oil, coal and gas companies without us knowing. And I think it really matters. If you look at a journal like Science, it says that if you are to submit a paper to that journal, then you have to be honest about what your funding is. And there are very good reasons for that. We have a phrase in Britain, he who pays the piper calls the tune. That is to say, if you pay for a piece of research, you can exert a possible subconscious effect on the nature of the outcomes of those research. And maybe that's fair or unfair for these individuals, but certainly the public deserves to know so they can judge for themselves. Transparency in science is always a good thing, transparency of funders is always a good thing. And what we had here were scientists willing to take money from fossil fuel companies and hide it from the public. Did donors trust the topic of that come up in the correspondence and who are they? Yeah, we were interested that Professor Happer passed us up to Bill O'Keefe, who is his colleague of the CO2 coalition who runs the George C. Marshall Institute, who's a very well-known climate skeptic group. And O'Keefe then passed us up the food chain to the Donors Trust, an organisation known as the Dark Money ATM of the Conservative movement. They are very good at getting money in and passing it around the Conservative causes in the US. We spoke to Peter Lipset of the Donors Trust, a guy very, very high up there who used to be very high up in the Koch Institute, the Charles Koch Institute, very well known for spreading misinformation on climate change, those guys. And we made clear to him that we wanted to pass money to the CO2 coalition in return for Professor Happer writing this climate skeptic report. We said we were a Middle Eastern oil company. We said we wanted to remain anonymous. And the Donors Trust were absolutely fine with that. Was there any mention in the correspondence with past examples of receiving money? Well, we also spoke to or emailed, I should say, Professor Frank Clementi from Penn State, and in that case we pretended to be an Indonesian coal company. And Clementi was very clear that he had been paid previously by Peabody Coal to write research papers and various other things and appear as a witness and even to write op-eds in newspapers. And on the latter, he definitely didn't tell his readers that he'd been paid by a coal company to write those op-eds. And I think that's a real problem. Again, it's one of transparency and openness. But really, if you're reading a piece of research or if you're reading a newspaper op-ed, I think you have a right as the public to know whether it's being funded by someone who has an interest in the outcome of the climate change debate. For soft fuel companies constitute a small number of people on this planet, but a whole load of financial clout. And if they're using that financial clout to defend their interests against the interests of wider society, then I think there's something fundamentally undemocratic about that, actually. Last question. What role does these kind of efforts play in the broader effort to reduce CO2 emissions? Well, if you live in an English-speaking country, America, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, then you are going to be familiar with the phenomenon of organised, politically active climate skepticism. In the States, it's a pretty good indicator of whether you will vote Republican or Democrat, your views on climate change. You know, it has become a really polarised issue. And this is a big problem because we need a societal consensus to take the kind of action that we need, I would argue. And the climate skeptics have done a very good job of creating doubt, false doubts around the climate side, which really narrows the political space for leaders to actually act. So I think by pushing back on them and demonstrating to the public that actually all is not what it seems here and climate skepticism might not be this kind of noble search for the truth that the skeptics proclaim themselves to be involved in. And in fact, there's a possibility that fossil fuel companies are using scientists to promote their commercial prerogative. Then that is useful, I think, to push back against this kind of false effort to distort the public debate and close down the political space that our leaders have. Thanks very much, Ben. Appreciate your time. Cheers, mate. Thanks a lot.