is officially the day that this deal is obsolete. i read more about that right now . if you're like online at odds, he dot com saturday program returning at half an hour. if you can join us then. mm hm. oil and gas, manufacturing, electricity, telecom, transportation, all of them now have i a t type of infrastructure connected to the internet. so clearly realizing this disruptive potential so that those countries cons, ignore it because it threatens national security issue. but if we take the nato and you countries, virtually all of them subscribed to certain doctrines and maintains so, but task forces, they are a cyber army on behalf of a country that's their job. ah,

as low dose, these 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, are 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, well, they toxicology community have not accepted it. they said we reject this. the resistance of the toxicologist was well intentioned. it was also prompt denture 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 ponds in other people's efforts to produce 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 there needed to be explanations of how the

difference was occurring. vom sow wanted to understand. he collected studies, published on the subject, and as a true ag natasha. 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. his conclusion, 93 percent of public studies ascertained to the harmful effects of bis phenol a at very weak doses. whereas none of a 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 a very strange animal to try to show that this feign all lay cause no arm. if you are interested in showing that between a lay is not estrogenic. you would select if they nora in which busy, no lay does not become, and mr. jenny compa say you have to be very careful about the mother and you chose, because you can choose their own mano, and you can choose their own malo because you the know, or you can trust them other because you know to well, how can you do this taylor made rat to prove the innocence of bis fina les

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 due to mid jago did to me to sing the manufacturers of ignorance, have a target of the assemblies and parliaments of our democracies which will ban or authorize a suspect product. look at the bernie zillow or see what the sector book was

shoulder and walks. the moment we give up on evidence based policymaking, we've given up on democracy, eat, but they called a low ballistic. mit is only eligible is obviously the 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 continue to so doubt the progress of a chemical and your body does not look as harmful. anyone rude and common such affirmations are spread on the internet with us. on our screens, many organizations with no apparent links to the industry. talk about this final, a sources of energy, the dying out of bees, the climate, food supplements, animal wellbeing, shale oil and so on. on the internet may to measure science is spreading blue. 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 ah anonymous yet global

social networks seem to be the ideal form for misleading all debate. 2 6 in this building, people keep an eye on this global discussion. overpass dorsey i was july, the asti to this, he stem complex is home to mathematicians. i t expert and ada specialists are all of those to go more through quite well when they develop tools to analyze the permanent conversation on social networks. warburg, are treated hubbard. osler sher 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 home 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. another good was the dog. 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 approved. it is what one of these young could do come nuclei, civil and before their eyes, the world's biggest scientific debate. it hears, well. you see on a loss on the on pretty rocky formula community. the key mentorship ticket is where bianca said grew into the key math was his teacher, previous doctor duluth, community kick was shrewd. they call to he for course austria. so leukemia loan i call ma'am. thank out in court out on a little i once the debate is rendered observable by john, what can we conclude pers, mondays but if, if you can or just realized yucky off at his own, went on huntington is on. he's won a for a moment. what it is to fix this either quickly will they consider electoral

results show active a unique won't you on the bus on the retreat to results reduced on retreat on these all 6? yes. al koya clay goodwin history taylor, this is daniella. should i ask with this, if you not 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 sanker category, a lawyer, the faith. chelsea ya then osceola history, mrs. hips, he is super dawson ma, those were both green a deep his goose as a boot off. after the moment you don't get the interaction with jesse immune you there, she'll do twice. you done. cool. the, you know, the, it is,

was through the fair guides. if you read visible to pass a good morning, i was on all of you all know nobody's it. no persona was, was you dignity? do? said tyler natoya paused. you've to think you'd be mounted munoz. he signed on to dr. young, who propagates climate skeptical, fought and why? let's go back to the posts. 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. it offices are completely calm. 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 on. 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 hefley people around the world for, for that because we're well known for that. when the climate skeptic community meets up the heartland institute always tops the bill. as the sponsor or coach. sponsor of conferences like this one in munich, germany, a beginning. i courage you to share the truth and sure ways of finding the truth with people. because that is the only way that the scientific method will prevail. sound sciences are 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. there 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 face a catastrophe of rising sea level. 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 pants of the 1st scientists 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 they 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, bonner, demands leadership in states. 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 com. squirrels collapsed o victory for america. and for the physicists engaged in the crusade for its supremacy agency work grew, and yet they didn't lay down their weapons. transport soon after

a conference was held in washington. among the speakers was fritz singer, a space race pioneer. however, he wasn't there to talk about rockets, but about the climate. ah, ah ah ah. well 1st you must understand that there is no real scientific support for the so called global greenhouse warming. when the cold war ended,

they seem 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? 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 re making 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 changed 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,

them 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 concludes 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 identify the individual cognitive mechanisms through which, unbeknownst to us, we construct our beliefs and limit our own knowledge. by turning our brain into a small factory of ignorance. mm. mm hm. 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? ah, you must be eli, i'm stealing and asking welcome to the experiment. thanks for coming. let me show you that the professor is carrying out an experiment he receives subjects willing to take part or coming. let me show you the lab. it's right here. seat and follow the 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 box animal. secret organizations come in like 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 i want you see on the left, the results show a correlation between their opinions on scientific issues, their political belief and the size of their appetite for conspiracy theories. accepting that the consent when asked to 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 even saw for the 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. piracy bio bio, engineered fibrous contains nano particles that can be activated on a time based arrangement by 5 g of access isn't a little jeweler. so this sooner than the model of a placebo, said to bomb the me, a kid crucial katie or get easy getting back. they caught humanity. 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 one on the networks is one side against the other blog in have these confrontations supplanted to slow, meticulous approach of science? has it become to each their own truth? you know, if i take the postal and drop it, we have gravity this router, matter of opinion, whatever our beliefs we can't ignore reality. the victims of climate change, the victims of fine particle pollution. for 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 beacon yes, yes. it was all i guess he the less as yeti ika. don't get a cold fixed associated good or bad? if you don't the ruling from nickel 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. what makes the world go round today is the economy. when the law of the market replaces that of the church, what new limits will be impose, downsize? 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 a lot of the market have on research can only be grasped, if we look at the big picture, the candle actually delicate? yes, yes sir. fit a fans in nama sip. de sales golf in 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 science is turned into a marketplace where everyone is trying to attract attention.

to liter ball awful. so duncan gets you into a fat vela now specie pc. it's really more key. so to put alamahood fernandez, i need to amanda maurice that as you knew me, she would speak with heather. he does. you know me, if somebody goes against mids, gun is ebby, the me yielded alone. don't i do amid the shall david's ellen will shin to weak onto him. exists he did say that no technology undo his age when he did, he shall succeed. ah if you're ready, nickleby, she'll f o yo yos, others up and it likes you. they 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 kid,

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's 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. making is not an issue. it's not that lethal. and it's not an issue for many doctors. controversies, multiply and hinder our understanding not. do you last year? fear fear, go and get some either quite miracle cures appear, tonic walk, let me say that we can see the workings of this manufacturer of ignorance, which the pioneers of an mythology, methodically dismantled for us. one question we could talk about is,

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. took any sales fixed, is failed to let a shaft of his offices 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 from the general public there are new force we can count on their developing tools and methods and they're shutting light on ways to protect a common asset science. and it's meticulous progress. ah

ah, ah, my view more broadly is the genocide has taken place. far more than anyone acknowledges it takes place frequently. it has taken place in virtually every country in the world. so why does it come to be called in? well, there's political will on mobilization if you remember, wanda, nobody initially wanted to name or may knew it just i was saying place nobody wanted to call it that. eventually that label came to take my son, not at the time when events were unfolding in border political zation is if you say

it's genocide, is suggest that you need to do something with a thousands riley in central london. they can still ra, new covert measures. daily infections in the u. k. report leave reach an all time high. the british supreme court rules it was unlawful to drop an inquiry into the alleged torture of 14 suspected irene members by british soldiers. one of them told us what he had to go through and do it this constable. boy, that the man that took over your brain waiver to night late.