this feel a doesn't acts like a typical poison. it acts as an indication 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. 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 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 they're needed to be explanations of how the

difference was occurring from sow, 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, is 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. ready 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 taylor 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 fin olay caused 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. janet compa say you have to be very careful about them, although you chose because you can test the romano. and you can close the romano because you the know or you can truth them other because you know to well, how can you do this? taylor made rat to prove the innocence of this scene 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 was alone per c. o would do said to report

was shown throughout the moment we give up on evidence based policy making. we've given up on democracy e put, they told they won't let each mit is only eligible. the 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 rang. 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 and different 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 the chemical and your body does not lose as harmful. anyone rude? i common such affirmations are spread on the internet with the us on our screens. many organizations with no apparent links to the industry, talk about of his female, 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 raping. 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. 2 6 in this building, people keep an eye on this global discussion bill. oh, perfect posture. she was in the institute as he stim complex is home to mathematicians. i t experts and data specialists. we are all of those go more through why so was just that they develop tools to analyze the permanent conversation on social networks with the type of austria should roll over 3 months that each habit of yes and his team have analyzed 20000000 posts on the climate, they 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. and all he had was the

diag 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 to tie the land before their eyes. the world's biggest scientific debate it hears. well, you see on a loss on the, on twitter ocoee formula community, the key mentorship ticket. you were bianca said, come into the team at the 15 peggy's dr. do loose community college? should they call to key 4? course austria 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? but if, if teachers just realized yaki oftentimes is a little fun container, is one a for a moment, would it is to fit your needs is either quickle's to consider electoral results show active or the quote you on the bus or me twitter which also produce on retreat

on these all 6. yes. al koya clay in history. taylor, this is marianna today. yeah, this is jill out to the hardcore spreading his arguments in astronomical quantities . vast 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 jacket tag. amalia, the face chelsea yet then osceola hesky, mississippi. he said pedestrian, although both have given a deep as good as a boot off after the moment. you don't get the interaction with jessie amy there. she'll do twice, you are the cool of a, you know, the, it is, was to do fair diet, if already visible of passive going on in those. and all of you all know nobody's

it know, casanya was, was you dignity? do? said taylor new boy paused. you'll need to thank you. the mountain men, yoshi sang, launched off by yells, 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. 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 harlot 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 lastly people around the world for, for that because we're well known for that. mm. 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. vicky annoyed and 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 science, jennifer 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 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 pants 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, 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 communist world collapsed victory 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 french singer,

a space race pioneer. however, he wasn't there to talk about rockets, but about the climate. ah, [000:00:00;00] a happy hey, dunaway, yesterday it had been done. we not allowed them to get them outside on mechanic and by then coffee. so she won't either they by then is a shift the a foursome

with multiple, multiple gyms or more can connect to. so that keeps a few health was but it shows the yellow here, mazda due to have the phone with how to put simple. so this is a, you can, it's a button and how it man a loudly hold on if that was you, how i did something and say, hey, do like a a to help you with that. can i maybe maybe i'm maybe we can join me every thursday. on the alex solomon show,

but i'll be speaking together in the world of politics, sport, business, i'm sure business. i'll see you then. first 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 and 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 as it stops us from living, happy and carefree lives and what is 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 that our own knowledge. by turning our brain into a small factory of ignorance. 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 stephen 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 on font, other computer place sour. 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 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. 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 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 a little bit of a conspiracy. the moment i do that, i can claim to my beliefs, and i can dismiss the scientific consensus. what 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. virus,

a bio bio, engineered fibrous contains nano particles that can be activated on a time based arrangement by 5 g x. i didn't a lot of jewelry. chandel ashley is suit any mold of a taco, sit on the me a could cushion katie all get easy. dixie bicycle told him anything and we haven't sure they don't want to give it out. rumors and counter rumors abound some denounce signs of a plot. others denounced those who denounce big news. share this with one on the networks. he's one side against the other lawyer. mm. 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 not a 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. through zillow. beacon, yes, yes, it was all i guess he the less as yeti ika. don't get a cold fixed associated go bad. if you don't to ruin from nickel kind 300 years ago, new scientific developments had to face off against the church today. it's really the market that has the same. 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 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 loss 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 fans in not may not sip the sales go for 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 market place where everyone is trying to attract attention to lead a bowlful. so duncan gets you into a fan vella. now spc pc, it's really move key. so to boot allenwood, well known as any to a minimal increase it that as you knew me, he would seek whatever he does. you know me have all the caustic else means gun is heavy, the meat yielded alone. don't undo mid dash out of its yellow, gentle weak onto me this he did say that note that under he undo his vague what g

a did he shouted. ah christmas. yeah. is it you're ready? nickleby, you actually oh yo yos and stuff and he likes you. they upgraded my mind a bit. my artificial intelligence. this is too cool. i can walk. why don't we follow yesterday now? sounded dumb in aiko new kid s o sasha? ah, less fashionable or less profitable in the short term, certain scientific feels have been deserted. some researchers has identified what they call the problem of an 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 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. not do you last year. fear fear going get some either quite miracle cures appear on it. what let me say that we can see the workings of this manufacturer of ignorance, which the pioneers of ag, natalia g, methodically dismantle for us question. we could talk about it, why does that work? i mean, some law, 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 is 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. some 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 ah, ah, failure to allow bond markets to reflect to market forces as resolved in a bifurcation in the economy where the most corrupt are rewarded for committing

crimes. j. p. morgan being a prime example. and if you have morals or ethics you're penalized. if you're not out there still sailing, alluding, then you're going to be homeless. and that's america today. is that a a 1000 rally in central london against a raft of new anti coven measures has daily infections in the u. k. reportedly reach in all time high. the british supreme court rules it was unlawful to drop an inquiry into the alleged torture of 14 suspected r, a members by british soldiers. one of them told us what he had to endure to at this