it, 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 up the world of toxicologists. 8 we were rejecting their dogma, 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 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 the 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 south wanted to understand. he collected studies, published subject. and as

a true ag natalie 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 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 cause no arm if you are interested in showing that between a lay is not estrogenic. you would select if they nora ng, which basically normally does not become an ester, 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 kiss the romano, because you the know or you can truth them all because you know to well, how can you do this? taylor made rat to prove the innocence of bis fina lay another success trick by the illusionist of science. ah,

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 hears 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 the meanest thing, the manufacturers of ignorance have a target uncle, the assemblies and parliaments of our democracies, which will ban or authorize a suspect product. at deborah, any resolution per see over there said to put was shoulder walked the moment we give up on evidence based policy making. we've given up on democracy epoch. they

call they lo, blessed each middle may lube oil. see, obviously they're 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, 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 products of a chemical and your body does not work as harmful anyone, rude ag homes?

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 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.

2 6 in this building, people keep an eye on this global discussion. will overthrow see i was in the institute as he stem complex is home to mathematicians. i t experts and data specialists. we are all of those dumb why through white with they develop tools to analyze the permanent conversation on social networks with the type of austria. 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 and out here in north america, 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, what up into on could do come new power. and before their eyes, the world's biggest scientific debate it hears well issue on a loss. on the, on twitter ocoee formula community, the key mentorship ticket. you were bianca said, grew into the team at the 15 previous dr. duluth, community college, should they call to key 4 course austria saluki, mo, loan echo, ma'am, of thank, out, in court, out on a movie i once the debate is rendered observable, well, what can we conclude person vessels for this, if you can, or just realized lucky off at his old huntington ayana is one of one woman. whoa, it is the fisheries. it's either cuckoo, metals they consider electoral results show active ha, clunky on the bus on the retreat to results reduced on the street on the don't 6. yes, al koya clay in history taylor, this is marianna today ask with his empty chill out to the hard core,

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 ammonia, the face. yes, if you could get then ot all it eskew mentorships. he is super dawson, although both a green, a deeper skirt that separate off at the moment. you don't get the interaction with jesse immune you there, she'll do twice. you don't cool that, you know, the, that is was, should be fair. died if in read visible to passive, go on in those and all the all. nobody's it don't. sonya angles was you dignity. deuce at taylor new boy paused. you'll need to thank you. the mountain men,

yoshi sang long to look by yells, who propagates climate skeptical. fought and why i, 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 heart land institute is this house set off a quiet street? its offices are completely calm. warm and yet read one of the most reputed think 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 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 law happily 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 co sponsor of conferences like this one in munich, germany via vicky annoyed. and i courage you to assure 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 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. 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 space. b, american physicists were mobilized to build a military and space program science in the service of ideology. they believed 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, she worked 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.

oh, driven by dream shaped bankers and those with dares sinks we dare to ask ah, with 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 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 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 140 a 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 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 that 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 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 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 lead, 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 in 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, these and 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 the so called climate crisis as an excuse in many scientific subjects, conspiracy theories reign. and each person proclaims their own theory virus. a bio bioengineered virus contains nano particles that can be activated on a time based arrangement by 5 g effects. isn't another jeweler? oh, no. actually this smoot any more level 2 ago. sit on the me,

a could cushion katie, all get hazy, mixing back, they caught him anything. and we haven't sure. they just don't want to give it out . rumors and counter rumors abound some downside to the 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 drop it, we have gravity. that's right. a 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. through zillow beacon, yes, yes, it was all i guessed he, the less as yeti ika. don't get a cold fixed associated go bad. if you don't to ruin from the cold 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 the laws of the market have on research can only be grasped, if we look at the big picture account, actually delicate, this yellow, so fit a fans in nama sip. de seals will fit 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 market place where everyone is trying to attract attention. to liter bowlful. so duncan gets you into a fan, vela no spc pc, it's really move key. so debit allenwood will not as any to a minimal increase it that as you knew me, she would seek whatever he does. you know me? he said, well, the caustic else means gun is heavy, the meat yielded alone. don't undo mid nash out of its yellow chandel week on dum, exist individually. then? no doctor, he undo his vague. what's he did? he shouted, ah christmas. yeah. is it you're ready? nickleby still 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 it? did the now sound a dumb in aiko new kid asked, alicia ah, less fashionable or less profitable in the short term, certain scientific feels have been deserted. some researchers have identified what they call the problem of an done science. now that science that simply left an 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 and ever

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. 0, one thing is not an issue. it's not that lethal. and it's not an issue for many doctors, hunter verse. he's multiply and hinder our understanding. no, no. do you last year? fear fear going get some either quite a miracle cures appear. hot water. let me say we can see the workings of this

manufacturer of ignorance, which the pioneers of ag, natalia g, methodically dismantle. for us, one question we could talk about is, why does that work? i mean, someone 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 seals 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 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, my view more broadly is that genocide has taken place. far more than anyone acknowledges. right, it takes place frequently. it is taking 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 amber may knew it just i was saying why nobody wanted to

call it that. eventually that label came to take place, but not at the time when events were unfolding. and part of that political is ation is if you say it's genocide, is suggest that you need to do something ah, working room or should in the back she popped in. she said, well, i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas and we, we sneaked, there was a good, you're buying another, shooting another safe part of american life. shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an a ar 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act when we're aspire on this issue, the other side wins. by default, the lady that lived over there, i was walking. one of the dogs says, why do you wear again when you skin nothing. they take it off it,

i think that people need to take responsibility into their own hands and be prepared if those kinds of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings that we certainly wouldn't have. the number of deaths with her in the store. is it shake the week here in our t rush or unveiled a list to proposals to nato for maintaining joint security. with the deputy for a minister saying the ball is now in the alliance is caught when it comes to de escalation over ukraine. also to come, the pens can says, no u. s. military personnel will be held responsible will be held liable for the bought drone strike in afghanistan last summer, which killed.