business, i'm show business, i'll see you then. mm ah, as though dos this feel a doesn't act like a typical poison. it acts as an into chron disruptor. meaning that it disturbs our hormones. the molecules that regulate, among other things, our reproductive system, with the tiniest observable doses, it can have devastating effects. in other words, between the dos and the effect of a product. research is starting to find some very unexpected relationships. and this is shaking off the world of toxicologists. 8 we were rejecting their dog law, the toxicology community has not accepted it. they said we reject this. the resistance of the toxicologist was well intentioned. it was also providential for the manufacturers of plastics. it's not

always that people intentionally want to derail science, some people unwittingly, through no fault of their own can at times be pawns in other people's efforts to pretty strategic ignorance. there are many ways that ignorance is produced. some of them are malevolent. some of them are inadvertent, some of them are well intentioned, but end up having these, these outcomes. and i think it's actually extremely important for us to study the broad question of how ignorance is produced. because not everyone who produces ignorance is necessarily evil. but some of these people are the plastics industry gives financial backing to alternative research thanks to which it spokespeople can proclaim year after year, that low doses are without danger. more than 100 independent studies have shown that real life exposure to bpa is about

a 1000 times below the safe intake limit set by i'm saying one thing industry is saying another. and they're needed the explanations of how the difference was occurring. vom sao wanted to understand he collected studies published on the subject. and as a true anatomic just he started investigating to find out why their conclusions diverged. during that time i didn't get a lot of sleep. i drank a lot of coffee. with his conclusion, 93 percent of public studies ascertained to the harmful effects of bis phenol a at very weak doses. whereas none of the studies financed by the industry did he finally grasped the major reason for this difference. much better than a lie, a genuine conjuring trick in the laboratories. they put a lot of time and effort into figuring out how do we do a study that shows no effects of this chemical?

how do you go about it? first, you find the right animal model that starts with these catalogs of laboratory mice and rats. you can choose them according to their biological parameters. you order them tailor made customized to the needs of the experiment you plan to carry out. then they're dispatched directly to your lab poop. the industry groups were using up very strange animals to try to show that this fin olay caused no arm if you are interested in showing that between a lay is not estrogenic. you would select if they not wrapped in which between a lay does not become and mr. jenny compa say you have to be very careful about the mother you chose because you can test the romano. and you can

kiss the romano, because either know or you can turn them on because you know to well, how can you do this? lou taylor made rat to prove the innocence of biz fina lay another success trick by the illusionist of science. thus the most insidious offensives are hidden in the details such as in the research protocols. this group of rules so tricky to put in place which guarantee the seriousness of a study. it only takes a corrupted protocol or a broken rule to shove, scientific progress off the rails. what's at stake? here's evidence based policy making. whether policy is based on the best available evidence or by the policy is designed to satisfy a particular industry in their pursuit of profit will do to media. bdo did to me to think the manufacturers of ignorance have a target uncle,

the assemblies and parliaments of our democracies, which will ban or authorize a suspect product. devote at the bernie zillow per, see what you said. the book was shown throughout the moment we give up on evidence based policy making. we've given up on democracy, eat, but they told they won't let each mit is omitted. you boy see selby's fiddle up to the point on that day. the french parliament banned the guilty baby bottles, but to ban concerns one single into chron disruptor present in one single product sold in one single country. a small victory, 20 years after the 1st alarm bells ring. a serious public health problem therefore continues to be covered up among the population. we're seeing a sharp increase in metabolic troubles, obesity, diabetes hormone dependent cancer's neuro, behavioral disorders and in fertility. in this explosion of cases,

endocrine disruptors are the prime suspects because everybody's organism is impregnated with him. meanwhile, the defenders of the plastics industry continued to so doubt the progress of a chemical and your body does not lose as harmful any one ruined. i call it such affirmations are spread on the internet with us on our screens. many organizations with no apparent links to the industry, talk about of his final, a sources of energy, the dying out of bees, the climate, food supplements, animal well being shale oil and so on. on the internet may to measure science is spreading. lou and the target here is the general public us and our opinions. because today to say whether we're pro or anti diesel

homeopathy or vague being. we click on like we tweet, we retweet. this is now public opinion anonymous, yet global social networks seem to be the ideal form for misleading all debate. 6 in this building, people keep an eye on this global discussion. oh, perfect posture. she. oh, it was jillian, the asti to this, he stem complex is home to mathematicians. i t experts and data specialists are also wants to go more through like when, when they develop tools to analyze the permanent conversation on social networks. ah, mobile. okay. if i treated liberal, sheila, she rolled over 3 months that each habit of yes and his team have analyzed $20000000.00 posts on the climate. the all come from twitter and spread across the globe. species are likely to disappear soon, who is talking to whom?

and how to the climate skeptics and their adversaries dual over this virtual space . the team has put together a system with which we can visualize this giant controversy, an audio noise with a dot. he's one person aligned between 2 people means that one of them has passed on the other's post. the more we pass on each other's post, the closer the dots get appointed is what one of these young could do. can you tie it around before their eyes, the world's biggest scientific debated hears? well, you see on a loss on the, on twitter ocoee formula community, the key mentorship ticket you were bianca said, grew into the key. math was if teacher, previous doctor duluth community college, should they call to key 4 course austria for saluki mo, loan echo, ma'am. thank out. in court, out on a movie i, once the debate is rendered observable, well, what can we conclude person with, if, if you can, or just realized yaki oftentimes is

a little huntington is on. it's one of when, when would it predict the future is either comparable to consider electoral results show active or the quote you on the bus home you tweet to results reduce on the street on these all 6? yes. al koya clay goodwin history taylor, this is marianna. today ask with this particular to the hardcore spreading his arguments in astronomical quantities. that's the asset of the climate skeptics in this battle for territory political enough to keep the community alive despite the gathering evidence. for the almost unanimous scientific community, global warming is unequivocal, and the impact of man is evident. this consensus however doesn't impose itself on the web web junker tag annoy yet if it chelsea yet did not see all it is came into, the city is super dawson. although both have given

a deeper skirt that separate off. after the moment you don't get the interaction won't get me there. she'll do it. was you done? cool. the, you know, the, that is was, should the fair died if read visible, to pass it on in those and all of you are not. nobody's it, not sonya angles was you dignity, due to taylor new po, aicpa is geneva to thank you. the most men, yoshi sang long to look by else who propagates climate skeptical thought. and why. let's go back to the post. take for example, this twitter account called heart land institute. what is there behind this dot? ah, the heartland institute is this house set off a quiet street. its offices are completely com, one and yet read one of the most reputed thing tanks in the world. here they

produce tweets, but also articles, conferences, and books. the heartland institute has its expert on climate matters and its director of communication. neither of them is a scientist which doesn't prevent this organization from massively spreading contrarian science on the climate. the best scientific evidence indicates there is no climate crisis. in fact, it's pretty strong that we're not facing one. i mean, the harlan institute is globally known for our work. oh it with scientists who are skeptical that humans are causing a climate crisis. and we are actually paid it probably by law. happily, people around the world for, for that because we're well known for that. mm hm. when the climate skeptic community meets up, the heartland institute always tops the bill as the sponsor, or co sponsor of conferences like this one in munich, germany. vicky annoyed,

and i courage you to assure the truth and sure ways of finding the truth of people because that is the only way that the scientific method will prevail. sound science or went out. who are the researchers who continue to doubt despite the consensus? are they skeptics because they're more conscientious, more rigorous than the others? what rational basis is there for saying that a little bit of warmer weather would be a bad thing. that is no basis for any are they paid by the oil industry to deny the effects of c? o 2 on the climate, we do not faith a catastrophe of rising. she left it's customary to look for shared interests between climate skeptics and the industry. but according to now me arrest, guess the best explanation lies elsewhere. as a historian, she has studied the career paths of the 1st scientist to express doubts about climate change. some eminent physicists and what we found by reading their papers

mean their diaries mean their letters to each other. that the motivation was not primarily money. it was ideological. ah, these men had been very prominent in the cold war and made believe very deeply. and i think sincerely and authentically in the communist threat at the time, the main battle between the soviet union and the united states was the conquest of space. america, leadership, honor, demands leadership in space. american physicists were mobilized to build a military and space program science in the service of ideology. they believe that the work they had done as scientists had helped to contain the communist threat and protect american democracy. then the communist world collapsed hickory for america. and for the physicists engaged in the crusade for its

supremacy, agency work group, and yet they didn't lay down their weapons. transport soon after a conference was held in washington. among the speakers was fred singer, a space race pioneer. however, he wasn't there to talk about rockets, but about the climate. ah, ah ah. oh right now there are 2000000000 people who are overweight or obese. it's profitable to sell food that he's fatty and sugary and salty and addicted.

not at the individual level. it's not individual willpower. and if we go on believing that never change is obesity epidemic. that industry has been influencing very deeply. the medical and scientific establishment. so what's driving the obesity epidemic? it's corporate. ah, 1st you must understand that there is no real scientific support for the so called global greenhouse warming. when the cold war ended, they seemed to need a new enemy. and the new enemy they found was environmentalism, which they interpreted as a kind of reads under the bed. what do they want? what is the real goal? the real goal is political control of the economy. they're using the so called

climate crisis caused by man as an excuse to do what they've always wanted to do. this is about remaking and reforming society and it's in the socialist image. so darla's tooth stands in front of them and says no in the wake of the scientists who had embraced an ideology, the heartland institute is clearly the air of an era on the kid of the cold war, right? freedom of liberty is, is, is precious. and now you have something like kind of change that actually threatens the existence of life on earth. and because it's so fundamental, it requires a significant intervention. and that's what they can't accept. why? well, because if you're emotionally invested in free markets, then climate change is a serious emotional threat because dealing with it means we have to change our approach to business. ah, and for some people that is extremely challenging, it entails giving up airplane, travel, entails giving out for combustion. automobiles by the way,

that means destroying one 4th of your cars, destroy one 4th of your power plant. i think i think our way of life is at risk in the scientific reason just isn't there our way of life. our frenzied consumption, our production methods. these are what we must change if science conclude that humans are responsible for global warming, which is unthinkable to some science. sure. but not a science that threatens our beliefs and values. ah, not if it stops us from living, happy, and carefree lives. and what if inside of us, we also had a need not to know psychologists have clearly identified the individual cognitive mechanisms through which, unbeknownst to us, we construct our beliefs. and in that our own knowledge,

by turning our brain into a small factory of ignorance, with a professor of psychology at bristol university in the united kingdom, to fund the vin dorski explores the complex relationships that we have with science . he wonders how to deal with a scientific consensus that doesn't suit us if people are threatened by the science, but they recognize that all the scientists, nearly all the scientists agree on that, then they are put into the situation of conflict or cognitive dissonance. what am i gonna do with my beliefs when all the scientists agree that you know my beliefs are under threat? i, you must be eli. i'm steven and asking welcome to the experiment. thanks for coming . let me show you the, the professor is carrying out an experiment he receives subjects willing to take

part or coming. let me show you a lab. it's right here. seat and font other computer place. so what i want you to do is just read through that. then click at the bottom when you're ready to proceed with each of them, he firstly wants to assess their behavior. when confronted with scientific issues, their political leanings and their appetite or not for conspiracy theories to do so, he exposes each subject to dozens of affirmations, and they say whether or not they agree. there is no such thing as ox. any more secret organizations come and people psychologically, socialism has many advantages over capitalism. out of 100 climate scientists. how many do you think? believe that c, o 2 emissions caused climate change? so this is where we now analyze the data from the experiment and real time. and once you see on the left, the results show a correlation between their opinions on scientific issues, their political beliefs and the size of their appetite for conspiracy theories.

accepting that the concert when asked you explain why there is a scientific consensus. they will resort to conspiracies. when ever the scientific consensus is in conflict with their worldviews on vaccinations, climate change explain away the scientific consensus. it is extremely helpful to just basically say, well, the scientists are all engaged in group. thank or they are pursuing a political agenda. they're all sort of in a little bit of a conspiracy. the moment i do that, i can cling to my beliefs and i can dismiss the scientific consensus. one is really striking here is that for climate change, it matters a great deal because the more conservative people law, the more they think that scientists are conspiring to produce a consensus ease and saw for the a scientific truth threatening your vision of the world. then adopt a theory that says the scientists are all conniving against the truth. what do they

want? what is the real goal? they're using so called climate crisis as an excuse in many scientific subjects, conspiracy theories, rain and each person proclaims their own theory. virus, a bio bio engineered virus contains nano particles that can be activated on a time based arrangement by 5 g of access it in another jeweler, chandel as it is sooner than the mold of a taco center on the me. a could cushion katie again, easy, routine, thick auto community. and we haven't sure they don't want to give it out. rumors and counter rumors abound. some denounce, signed to the plot. others denounced those who denounce big news. share this with on the networks he's one side against the other. log in.

have these confrontations supplanted the slow, meticulous approach of science. has it become to each their own truth? you know, if i take this palatable and drop it, we have gravity. that's rather matter of opinion. whatever our beliefs, we can't ignore reality. the victims of climate change, the victims of fine particle pollution, or those of infectious diseases in places where we've stopped vaccinating. these faces are a reminder that we cannot ignore scientific truth without consequences. facts always impose themselves in the end. and in spite of everything, our knowledge increases gradually building up in one way or another. through the ages. fuccillo v s yells, it was all i guess he, the less s u t. e could don't get

a cold fixed associated good or bad. if he doesn't to ruin from decal tank 300 years ago, new scientific developments had to face off against the church today. it's really the market that has assumed the role of the church. the market has become that authority. that is hard to challenge another time, another setting which makes the world go round today is the economy. went along, the market replaces that of the church. what new limits will be in po is on science . will this new face off decide which research is accepted? and of course, there are cases of the researcher caught in a conflict of interest. the scientist who ceases to remain objective because he's influenced by his financial backing. but the grip of the economy on science far outweighs these individual cases. what impact the laws of the market have on

research can only be grasped if we look at the big picture account, actually delicate? yes, yes sir. fit a fast enough memory. sip de sales call fe the market economy frames science in a way that values and privileges science that can be monetize, that as lucrative researchers must generate money and find it. and so scientists turned into a marketplace where everyone is trying to attract attention to little ball awful. so talk a bit. so you do have fat vela no spc pc, it's really more tv. so debit alamahood. you'll notice any, de amanda will grease it. that as you know me, she would speak with heather. he does, you know me,

have all the goals that goldsmith's gun zebedee me yielded alone. don't undo mid yet, shall david zulema, shin to week on domains is he did see that no technology. i'll do his vedo, etc. a did he shall succeed. ah, is it you're ready? nickleby, she'll actually. oh yo yos. understands it makes you the upgraded my mind a bit. my artificial intelligence. this is too cool. i can walk. why don't the palace oh no. yesterday now sounded dumb in aiko new kit, s o sasha. ah, less fashionable or less profitable in the short term, certain scientific fields have been deserted. some researchers have identified what they call the problem of and done science. now that science that

simply left on investigated because there is little commercial imperative in studying and mm. undone science, science that simply isn't done. the experiment never carried out the lab that never opened the epidemiological study that doesn't exist because it was never financed. the scientific books never written, the medical thesis never published. these are the vast territories of ignorance, which we don't explore because they don't earn because we prefer not to know or because we never even imagined them. ah, our need to know is limitless. in our wonder at science permanent

but we also see science under threat of virus spreading and scientific denial spreading with it. hold 19 is not an issue. it's not that we fall and it's not an issue for many doctors. controversies, multiply and hinder our understanding. no, no, do you last year? fear fear going get some either quite miracle cures appear. tonic wall. let me say that we can see the workings of this manufacturer of ignorance, which the pioneers of ag, natalia methodically dismantle for us question, we could talk about it. why does that work? i mean, some law that they speak at the world's most prestigious universities, and they're now listened to on forms at round tables in the media talk. and he feels fixed. his failed to let a shaft of his own business and more and more at parliamentary commissions and inquiries based on 15 years of research on the history of climate science and have

collaborative still only a few. ah, but for us, the general public, there are new force we can count on their developing tools and methods and they are shedding light on ways to protect a common asset science. and it's meticulous progress. ah ah,

with oil and gas manufacturing, electricity, telecom guys with all of them now have t type of infrastructure connected to the internet. so clearly realizing that it's

disruptive potential so that those countries can't ignore it because it threatens national security issue. but if we take nato e u countries, virtually all of them subscribe to certain doctrines and maintains selling but tell us closes they are a cyber army on behalf of a country. that's their job. ah, our new german language channel r t d e's embroiled in a legal dispute as europe's media regulator. questions is broadcast license party management stresses the license was obtained in full compliance with european law arizona. law enforcement struggles to deal with the hundreds of migrants arriving every day. state of emergency has been imposed. gutierrez, describing the situation as chaos. so we end up with the address on the browser.