- há 2 dias
Tabaco, clima, pesticidas... Nunca o conhecimento científico foi tão amplo — e tão contestado. Com arquivos secretos, animações e especialistas, este documentário revela como corporações criam estratégias para gerar dúvidas, confundir o público e travar decisões políticas.
Categoria
📚
AprendizadoTranscrição
00:00Transcrição e Legendas Pedro Negri
00:30Every day, more needs. More technology available. More comfort. More products on the shelves. And every day, new questions. What is there in our fields? On our plates? In our medicines? Has the industrial era made our world toxic?
01:00Concern is growing.
01:04Save our planet! Save our planet!
01:07Citizens accuse industries of hiding the truth from us. And industry denies it. How can we judge?
01:15We don't have an end touch!
01:16So we turn to science.
01:20We ask researchers to be the judges of these new battles for us.
01:23We demand that they step into the arena.
01:27Science as the judge. This is what makes it a target. An activity to influence, to corrupt, or to undermine.
01:37We're living in a world where there are many people who have a vested interest in fighting information, fighting scientific evidence, and discrediting even the notion that science could provide the truth about the natural world.
01:49They are intentionally seeking to derail science.
01:53So we need to identify these attacks. To expose the maneuvering of those trying to stand in the way of knowledge.
02:00And in that context, it's essential for us to understand who these people are, what they do, why they do it, and how they do it.
02:08And we have to understand how it is that the public sometimes participates in the spreading of this deliberate ignorance.
02:19So we need to visit this landscape of manufactured ignorance.
02:38In northern Greece, like in most of the developed world, bees are the victims of an ongoing carnage.
02:49Well known since the 1990s, this has now become a textbook case.
02:54A point from where we can begin our exploration of the manufacture of ignorance.
02:59Things always start with an enigma.
03:02In Greece, like elsewhere, experts on bees didn't understand what was happening and why.
03:07TV news programs everywhere showed beekeepers in total disarray.
03:17Secondly, a suspect shows up.
03:22This time it was a new generation of insecticides in our fields.
03:26The latest baby of the agrochemical industry at the time.
03:30...multiple active ingredients.
03:32Every Syngenta formulation is the result of years of careful investigation and thorough research by our scientists.
03:40The moment these new products were spread on our crops, bees started dying in their millions.
03:47Thirdly, science is asked to investigate.
03:55To do so, Fani Hajina has been constantly going back and forth between her hives and her lab.
04:01But looking for the truth has proven to be a game of cat and mouse.
04:11The usual task for scientists is to retreat into the calm of their labs, then explain what's being observed on the ground.
04:20We ask them to shed light on the mystery of the dying bees, just as they have explained so many other phenomena.
04:32The role of science is to highlight natural mechanisms and reach an explanation for the slightest observable fact.
04:39This is how science normally progresses, by solving more and more mysteries.
04:47And in principle, our knowledge of the world we live in increases.
04:52However, this fine principle sometimes has a few hiccups.
04:58For scientific observers, the case of the vanishing bees is emblematic of this.
05:04With something like bees and pesticides, you should have been able to investigate it by collecting data,
05:11by following the evidence where it's taking you.
05:14The crux of the idea is that when we find the evidence that tells us what's happening,
05:19we tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and we let the chips fall where they may.
05:24We commit, in a way, sort of committing to accepting the truth of those findings.
05:29But in the case of the bees, that's not exactly how things went.
05:36In the early 2000s, government expert reports showed the toxic effect of even very low doses of neonicotinoids on bees.
05:45And yet, for more than 20 years, there has been no unanimity.
05:50No consensus on the link between these pesticides and the disappearance of bees.
05:55Why are things lagging so much?
06:02You need to be a very shrewd observer to see the whole picture.
06:07From the moment we saw these troubles of bees appear, there was maybe 4 to 5 times more research on the alternative causes of pesticides.
06:17The natural pathogens, the farroa, the nosema, different viruses, but also on the bad practices apicole, the climate change,
06:24the loss of habitat, the nocturn light, the frelon asiatique, other invasive species, the little coléoptère of the ruche.
06:30Bref, there was a whole variety of alternative causes that were more intensely explored than the pesticides.
06:37A quick search in a scientific study database proves it.
06:42As soon as pesticides were suspected, the number of public or private studies focusing on other possibilities skyrocketed.
06:502010, the veterinary authorities were confused.
06:55The more studies there were, the less beekeepers could make sense of it all.
07:10It seems like a paradox until you look back to an older case.
07:16When you see a flourishing of new studies emerge in any particular area, a little bit ironically, it creates the appearance of being dedicated to pursuing the truth.
07:28But it takes me directly back to the case of Big Tobacco.
07:33It's what's up front that counts.
07:39To understand, we need to go back to the 1950s, a time when tobacco was treated with total recklessness.
07:52Filter blend means fine tobacco for the best taste yet.
07:59But this recklessness wouldn't last.
08:02What does this product contain?
08:04In December 1953, the bad news broke.
08:09Researchers had just provoked cancer in mice by painting them with tar from cigarettes.
08:16After this discovery, war broke out.
08:21The tobacco companies had a real crisis because they can't contest the evidence and say it's wrong.
08:29They can just say, we don't know.
08:31And so the leaders of all the major cigarette companies got together in New York City.
08:38We now know that a meeting took place at the Plaza Hotel in New York in December between the bosses of the seven major manufacturers, collectively known as Big Tobacco.
08:50Imagine the scene.
08:53Gentlemen, let's get right to the heart of the matter.
08:57The meeting would go down in the annals of ignorance.
09:01It is a challenge to every one of us.
09:03And we are all in this together, unified.
09:06Confronted with scientific progress, the cigarette manufacturers came up with a plan.
09:10Yes.
09:11They launched this campaign in which they said, you know, we're aware of this science.
09:17We think there are problems with it and it's a matter of deep concern to us.
09:23Now we are beginning a campaign to spell out that basic point so that no one will fail to get it.
09:29They decided to make a public statement.
09:32We are pledging aid and assistance to the research effort into all phases of tobacco use and health.
09:39For this purpose, we are establishing a joint tobacco industry group, the Tobacco Industry Research Committee.
09:47The press published the declaration, tobacco industry to start scientific research.
10:08Believe me friends, Chesterfield has for your smoking pleasure and protection. Every advantage known to modern science.
10:15Chesterfield gives you scientific facts.
10:18It's really using science against itself.
10:43The explicit use of science against science, I think, does represent a kind of watershed.
10:47To systematically fund scientific research in order to undermine science, effectively fighting fire with fire.
10:54That's a watershed moment.
10:56So after they decided this, how did they operationalize it?
11:01One of the things that tobacco companies funded a lot of them is what I call distracting research.
11:08The labs, backed by the cigarette manufacturers, defined research projects known as special projects,
11:16or SPs, a whole arsenal for diverting science.
11:21They researched, for example, lung cancer in non-smokers.
11:25They searched for links to habitat, working conditions, personal habits.
11:31They experimented on rabbits to see if lung cancer could be caused by toxins or viruses.
11:36Big tobacco thus generously financed hundreds of research projects.
11:43Some of these projects turned out to be very useful, such as research into the precursors of cardiovascular disease.
11:49But others were totally wacky.
11:51Can egg yolk or tomato juice on the skin lead to tumors?
11:55What's the link between lung cancer and baldness?
11:58Or between this same cancer and the month of birth?
12:01If you were born in March, claimed one study, you were more at risk.
12:06A convincing strategy.
12:20Because lung cancer can probably be explained by a combination of factors.
12:25Identifying the different risk factors is normal in science.
12:29Multiplying avenues of research seems totally legitimate.
12:32But it can also be extremely handy for sowing confusion.
12:45It becomes almost impossible to prove the suspect's guilt.
12:48And that's the aim.
12:50That's extremely well understood.
12:52And that designed the playbook for pretty much every other science denial that has followed.
13:00This is a story about tobacco.
13:02This is a story about acid rain.
13:04This is a story about the ozone hole.
13:06This is a story about pesticides.
13:08This is a story about climate change.
13:10Neonicotenoids, bisphenol A, contraceptive pills.
13:13I mean, we have now seen this strategy used over and over and over again.
13:20It's about buying time.
13:22And it's, unfortunately, a successful strategy.
13:25In the case of tobacco, it's 70 years already and it's still going.
13:33In the case of the dying bees, the advancement of knowledge has also been deliberately slowed down.
13:38So, we're talking about decades of disinformation and decades of delay.
13:53And in the meantime, the companies are still making gobs of money.
14:00When a scientific lie has been constructed over several decades, where do the first cracks begin to appear?
14:25Forty years after the first alerts on tobacco, somewhere in the U.S., a humble employee performed an act that would change everything.
14:40The box he sent finally arrived in California, at the University of San Francisco.
14:45On that day, Professor Glantz was in for a surprise.
14:50On May 12, 1994, a box of documents landed in my office from an anonymous source.
14:57These were internal documents from, at the very highest levels of the tobacco industry.
15:03They're senior scientists, they're senior lawyers, they're senior management, they're senior public relations people.
15:09Talking very, very frankly about what they knew about the dangers of smoking.
15:19This was an unhoped for treasure for the professor.
15:26It was like a new world, stumbling into a new world.
15:30Take seats.
15:31The leaked documents increased in number.
15:33The truth broke.
15:34The tobacco industry bosses were cornered.
15:36Gentlemen, the recent disclosure of documents have shaken my confidence that your companies care about the truth.
15:45These documents suggest possible manipulation of scientific research by industry attorneys.
15:52If these things are true, then you should know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and will not be allowed.
15:59Faced with the proof, the tobacco bosses were forced to make decades of secret archives public.
16:08And the collection, which started out a few thousand pages, is now up around 93 million pages.
16:17These documents are now kept in the University of San Francisco archives.
16:20They contain all the details of a massive manipulation of science.
16:25The tactics deployed, the researchers recruited, and the sums of money involved.
16:30Among these documents, one internal memo from 1969 sums up on its own what the tobacco industry had decided to produce.
16:38Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of the general public.
16:49It is also the means of establishing a controversy.
16:53The key strategy is the creation of doubt about science.
16:57Doubt is a perfect weapon.
16:58It's effective, but also pernicious, because doubt is legitimately part of science.
17:03In fact, it's an essential driver of science.
17:06We investigate things because we have questions about them, because we're curious,
17:10or because we doubt the existing explanation is adequate.
17:13So we need doubt in science.
17:15The word doubt is at the heart of science.
17:18We always say that science doubts.
17:19But, attention, there are two types of science.
17:22There is the established science.
17:23We don't put in the case today that the Earth is round.
17:26We don't have doubt that the birds fall at 9,8 meters per second square.
17:31Galilée has measured it.
17:32We can measure it again, but it will give the same thing.
17:35There is no doubt.
17:36The doubt is that the science is working on it.
17:39The one that we are studying.
17:40Effectivement, we put some hypotheses.
17:42So the strategy of doubt is to want to make a stable science, accepted, established,
17:49as being still committed to doubt.
17:52So what the tobacco industry did was to take a virtue
17:55and turn it into a vice.
17:58The use of scientific method against science itself.
18:03That's what these documents revealed.
18:07These windfalls enthuse historians and whistleblowers.
18:11They have even inspired a new field of study.
18:14How many of you before this week knew something about the history of tobacco?
18:18Naomi Oreskes teaches her students to identify historical obstructions of science.
18:26The discovery of this long history of deception has led to a new field of intellectual study,
18:31a new academic field, and it's called agnotology.
18:35And that means the study of ignorance.
18:38Agnotology was born.
18:41Now, academics attempt to unravel the mainsprings of our ignorance,
18:46to look into what we don't know, a curious field of study.
18:50We were laughed at at first because people thought it was not academic to study the absence of knowledge,
18:57to study ignorance.
18:58But I think people are laughing a bit less now and starting to be a bit worried
19:03because we sense and they realize how pervasive the problem might be.
19:08What prevents us from knowing?
19:15More people are asking this question, encouraging experts in ignorance to leave their universities and speak out publicly.
19:23But over the course of this talk, I'll introduce different ways of thinking about ignorance,
19:29and particularly this phrase, strategic ignorance.
19:32We're going to ask you to think about examples in your own life of strategic ignorance.
19:37On a, au fond, l'émergence d'un nouveau concept de l'ignorance.
19:40Jusque-là, l'ignorance, c'est simplement ce qu'on ne connaît pas,
19:44et qu'on va peut-être connaître un jour par des recherches.
19:47Maintenant, on s'aperçoit que, non, on peut produire activement de l'ignorance.
19:53So we're now invited to look for obstacles to our knowledge,
19:57things that halt the progress of science, deliberately or not,
20:01and sometimes even, what we prefer not to know.
20:04Unraveling all that is no small issue.
20:07That's why the study of ignorance, or agnotology, needs to progress methodically.
20:13And it's a fascinating field of inquiry, with contributions from psychology, sociology, history, political science, cognitive science, computer science, network science.
20:26There are lots of disciplines involved that can help us understand how ignorance is being manufactured,
20:33and how we can protect ourselves against it.
20:35This new awareness is still in its early days.
20:41But the race is on, because the strategic production of ignorance continues to be perfected.
20:51To debunk it, we must often plunge into the detail of scientific practices.
20:56Innovations regularly arrive on the market, and with them, a fair share of suspicion.
21:07Are they a threat to our health?
21:09And more importantly, at what dosage?
21:12That's the big question, the one that gives rise to the most terrible of battles.
21:17One of these battles began in this laboratory, one day in 1989.
21:31Carlos Sonenschein and Anna Soto are both biologists.
21:35For years, they have been trying to solve the mystery of cellular proliferation in cancer.
21:42Suddenly, before their very eyes, some control cells cultivated in a test tube began to proliferate for no apparent reason.
21:51It was a real Sherlock Holmes investigation, trying to find out where it came from,
21:58because that is the first thing you have to do, identify what is the source.
22:03They reviewed each piece of lab equipment, four months of suspense.
22:09And finally, they had their culprit, the centrifuge tubes.
22:16They were made of a material that should have been inert, but wasn't.
22:22The plastic used contained and dispersed a substance that acted like the hormone estrogen.
22:28Carlos and I were very disturbed by this finding.
22:33We thought that this was a big deal.
22:36If you can find such a substance here, can it be elsewhere?
22:41In toys, bottles, food containers?
22:45In all the plastics that end up in the environment?
22:48And how does it affect our organism?
22:51The effect of product Exxon Health is what is studied by toxicologists.
23:08The accepted rule is centuries old.
23:10It's simple and seemingly makes good sense.
23:13The effect is proportionate to the quantity absorbed.
23:17It's true for sugar.
23:18It's true for fats.
23:20It's true for pretty much any product.
23:23According to the rules of toxicology, the dose makes the poison.
23:27Which by extension means that anything below the dose isn't a poison.
23:34According to this rule, a plastic with the characteristics of a hormone that ends up in a baby's mouth shouldn't pose any problem.
23:42Because the quantity of synthetic estrogen ingested is tiny.
23:49True or false?
23:51This is the crux of the battle.
23:53The original Check-out is the evidence of the Items
24:01One of the experiences of the American researchers it's called Fred Vomsal
24:06It will be the first experiment to control the laboratory animals
24:10to try to evaluate the activity of a very banal plastifying plant called Bisphenol A
24:16This has the structure of an estrogenic drug
24:21Eles estão usando um hormônio de sexo para fazer plástico.
24:27Isso é incrível.
24:31Por anos, Professor Vom Sao e his team
24:34observaram mais expostos de diferentes doses de bisphenol A.
24:39Para experimentar os traces do produto,
24:41eles exploraram o que acontece no limite de detection
24:44usando ultra-sensitiva máquinas.
24:47E o que eles descobriam que o mundo de ciência.
24:50Na verdade, o dano ao sistema reproductivo
24:55ocorreu 25 mil vezes
24:59abaixo do que foi considerado uma dose que não causaria nenhum efeito.
25:05Nós fomos absolutamente chocados.
25:09É considerável por várias razões.
25:13A mais importante de elas é que uma parte de essas substâncias
25:16pode ter mais importantes para as doses infinitesimais
25:21que a de doses mais fortes.
25:23E porquê isso é importante?
25:24Simplesmente porque a toxicologia reglamentária
25:26testa a nocividade de essas moléculas
25:29em alta dose.
25:31E nunca testa a nocividade de essas moléculas
25:36em que as doses que os humanos são normalmente expostos,
25:39que são de doses infinitesimais.
25:41At a low dose, bisphenol A doesn't act like a typical poison.
25:48It acts as an endocrine disruptor,
25:51meaning that it disturbs our hormones,
25:54the molecules that regulate, among other things,
25:56our reproductive system.
25:57With the tiniestes observable doses,
26:01it can have devastating effects.
26:03In other words,
26:04between the dose and the effect of a product,
26:07research is starting to find
26:08some very unexpected relationships.
26:11And this is shaking up the world of toxicologists.
26:15We were rejecting their dogma.
26:18The toxicology community
26:21have not accepted it.
26:24They said,
26:24we reject this.
26:27The resistance of the toxicologists
26:30was well-intentioned.
26:32It was also providential
26:33for the manufacturers of plastics.
26:35It's not always that people
26:38intentionally want to derail science.
26:41Some people, unwittingly,
26:42through no fault of their own,
26:44can at times be pawns
26:46in other people's efforts
26:48to produce strategic ignorance.
26:50There are many ways
26:51that ignorance is produced.
26:52Some of them are malevolent.
26:55Some of them are inadvertent.
26:56Some of them are well-intentioned,
26:58but end up having these outcomes.
27:01And I think it's actually extremely important
27:03for us to study the broad question
27:05of how ignorance is produced.
27:07Because not everyone
27:08who produces ignorance
27:09is necessarily evil,
27:11but some of these people are.
27:12The plastics industry gives financial backing
27:18to alternative research,
27:20thanks to which its spokespeople
27:21can proclaim year after year
27:23that low doses are without danger.
27:26More than 100 independent studies
27:28have shown that real-life exposure to BPA
27:31is about 1,000 times below
27:34the safe intake limit.
27:35I'm saying one thing,
27:38industry is saying another.
27:40And there needed to be explanations
27:42of how the difference was occurring.
27:48Vomsau wanted to understand.
27:50He collected studies published on the subject.
27:53And as a true agnotologist,
27:55he started investigating
27:56to find out why their conclusions diverged.
27:58During that time,
28:00I didn't get a lot of sleep.
28:02I drank a lot of coffee.
28:04Yes.
28:05His conclusion,
28:0793% of public studies
28:09ascertained to the harmful effects
28:10of bisphenol A at very weak doses,
28:13whereas none of the studies
28:15financed by the industry did.
28:17He finally grasped
28:18the major reason for this difference,
28:21much better than a lie,
28:22a genuine conjuring trick
28:24in the laboratories.
28:26They put a lot of time and effort
28:28into figuring out
28:30how do we do a study
28:32that shows no effects of this chemical.
28:38How do you go about it?
28:40First, you find the right animal model.
28:43That starts with these catalogs
28:44of laboratory mice and rats.
28:46You can choose them
28:47according to their biological parameters.
28:49You order them tailor-made,
28:51customized to the needs
28:52of the experiment you plan to carry out.
28:55Then, they're dispatched
28:56directly to your lab.
28:58The industry groups
29:02were using
29:04a very strange animal
29:06to try to show
29:09that bisphenol A
29:11caused no harm.
29:12If you are interested
29:13in showing
29:14that bisphenol A
29:16is not estrogenic,
29:17you would select
29:19a strain of rat
29:20in which bisphenol A
29:21does not become
29:23from an estrogenic compound.
29:26So you have to be very careful
29:28about the model you choose
29:30because you can choose
29:32the wrong model.
29:33And you can choose
29:34the wrong model
29:35because you don't know
29:36or you can choose
29:37the model because
29:38you know too well.
29:39How can you do this?
29:41Taylor made rats
29:43to prove the innocence
29:45of bisphenol A,
29:46another success trick
29:47by the illusionists of science.
29:49Thus, the most insidious
29:57offensives
29:57are hidden in the details,
29:59such as in the research protocols,
30:02this group of rules
30:03so tricky to put in place
30:04which guarantee
30:05the seriousness of a study.
30:07It only takes
30:08a corrupted protocol
30:09or a broken rule
30:10to shove scientific progress
30:12off the rails.
30:13What's at stake here
30:17is evidence-based policymaking,
30:19whether policy is based
30:21on the best available evidence
30:22or whether policy
30:23is designed
30:24to satisfy
30:26a particular industry
30:28in their pursuit of profit.
30:31The manufacturers
30:32of ignorance
30:32have a target,
30:34the assemblies
30:35and parliaments
30:36of our democracies,
30:37which will ban
30:38or authorize
30:39a suspect product.
30:40The moment we give up
30:48on evidence-based policymaking,
30:50we've given up
30:51on democracy.
30:55On that day,
30:59the French parliament
31:00banned the guilty baby bottles.
31:02But the ban
31:03concerns
31:03one single endocrine disruptor
31:05present in one single product
31:07sold in one single country.
31:10A small victory
31:1120 years
31:12after the first alarm bells rang.
31:16A serious public health problem
31:18therefore continues
31:19to be covered up.
31:21Among the population,
31:23we're seeing a sharp increase
31:24in metabolic troubles,
31:26obesity,
31:27diabetes,
31:28hormone-dependent cancers,
31:30neurobehavioral disorders
31:31and infertility.
31:34In this explosion of cases,
31:36endocrine disruptors
31:37are the prime suspects
31:38because everybody's organism
31:40is impregnated with them.
31:43Meanwhile,
31:44the defenders
31:45of the plastics industry
31:46continue to sow doubt.
31:48The presence of a chemical
31:49in your body
31:50does not mean
31:51it's harmful.
31:53Such affirmations
31:54are spread on the Internet.
31:56of something,
31:57the more effect
31:57it's going to have.
31:58Yes,
31:59BPA is safe.
32:02On our screens,
32:03many organizations
32:04with no apparent links
32:06to the industry
32:06talk about bisphenol A,
32:09sources of energy,
32:10the dying out of bees,
32:12the climate,
32:13food supplements,
32:14animal well-being,
32:16shale oil,
32:16and so on.
32:19On the Internet,
32:21made-to-measure science
32:22is spreading.
32:25And the target here
32:26is the general public,
32:28us and our opinions.
32:30Because today,
32:32to say whether we're pro
32:33or anti-diesel,
32:34homeopathy,
32:35or vaping,
32:36we click on like,
32:37we tweet,
32:38we retweet.
32:39This is now public opinion.
32:43Anonymous yet global,
32:45social networks
32:46seem to be the ideal forum
32:48for misleading all debate.
32:49In this building,
32:58people keep an eye
32:58on this global discussion.
33:02The Institut des systèmes complexes
33:05is home to mathematicians,
33:07IT experts,
33:08and data specialists.
33:12They develop tools
33:13to analyze
33:14the permanent conversation
33:15on social networks.
33:17Over three months,
33:24David Chevalarias
33:25and his team
33:25have analyzed
33:2620 million posts
33:27on the climate.
33:29They all come from Twitter
33:30and spread across the globe.
33:35Who is talking to whom?
33:37And how do the climate skeptics
33:38and their adversaries
33:39duel over this virtual space?
33:42The team has put together
33:44a system with which
33:45we can visualize
33:46this giant controversy.
33:48A dot is one person.
33:52A line between two people
33:53means that one of them
33:54has passed on the other's post.
33:56The more we pass on each other's posts,
33:58the closer the dots get.
33:59And before their eyes,
34:04the world's biggest
34:05scientific debate appears.
34:07And once the debate is rendered observable,
34:27what can we conclude?
34:29What can we conclude?
34:29A hard core spreading its arguments
34:41in astronomical quantities.
34:42that's the asset of the climate skeptics
34:45in this battle for territory.
34:47Enough to keep the community alive,
34:49despite the gathering evidence.
34:51For the almost unanimous scientific community,
35:02global warming is unequivocal
35:04and the impact of man is evident.
35:06This consensus, however,
35:08doesn't impose itself on the web.
35:09On voit bien que très régulièrement,
35:10il y a des faits scientifiques
35:11qui viennent démentir
35:12les tests climato-sceptiques.
35:12Et c'est potentiellement dangereux
35:14et c'est potentiellement dangereux
35:14pour cette communauté
35:15c'est potentiellement burned
35:15pour la gloire de la pause
35:16qui paddling le재로 à montagne.
35:17On voit bien
35:17que très régulièrement,
35:18il y a des faits scientifiques
35:20qui viennent démentir
35:20les tests climato-sceptiques.
35:21Et c'est potentiellement dangereux
35:36pour cette communauté
35:37puisque ça peut leur faire perdre
35:39des membres.
35:39et donc, il y a una réaction
35:41quasi immunitaire sur deux,
35:42de coisas alternativas e serão visíveis porque estamos em um ambiente globalizado.
35:47Então, sem as redes sociais, comunidades de essa tamanho não poderiam
35:51sobreviver a coisas que desmentem de maneira também cinglante a criação.
36:06Quem propaga a pensamento climático e por que?
36:09Let's go back through the posts.
36:12Take, for example, this Twitter account called Heartland Institute.
36:17What is there behind this dot?
36:27The Heartland Institute is this house set off a quiet street.
36:31Its offices are completely calm.
36:34And yet, we're at one of the most reputed think tanks in the world.
36:40Here, they produce tweets, but also articles, conferences and books.
36:45The Heartland Institute has its expert on climate matters
36:49and its director of communication.
36:52Neither of them is a scientist, which doesn't prevent this organization
36:57from massively spreading contrarian science on the climate.
37:03The best scientific evidence indicates there's no climate crisis.
37:07In fact, it's pretty strong that we're not facing one.
37:09I mean, the Heartland Institute is globally known for our work with scientists
37:15who are skeptical that humans are causing a climate crisis.
37:18We are actually hated probably by a lot of people around the world for that
37:24because we're well known for that.
37:25When the climate skeptic community meets up,
37:29the Heartland Institute always tops the bill
37:32as the sponsor or co-sponsor of conferences like this one in Munich, Germany.
37:37And I encourage you to share the truth and share ways of finding the truth with people
37:45because that is the only way that the scientific method will prevail.
37:48Sound science and truth will win out.
37:50Who are the researchers who continue to doubt despite the consensus?
37:55Are they skeptics because they're more conscientious, more rigorous than the others?
38:00What rational basis is there for saying that a little bit of warmer weather would be a bad thing?
38:10There is no basis.
38:13Are they paid by the oil industry to deny the effects of CO2 on the climate?
38:17We do not face a catastrophe of rising sea level.
38:22It's customary to look for shared interests between climate skeptics and the industry.
38:27But according to Naomi Oreskes, the best explanation lies elsewhere.
38:32As a historian, she has studied the career paths of the first scientists
38:36to express doubts about climate change, some eminent physicists.
38:41And what we found by reading their papers, reading their diaries,
38:44reading their letters to each other, that the motivation was not primarily money.
38:48It was ideological.
38:50These men had been very prominent in the Cold War, and they believed very deeply,
39:00and I think sincerely and authentically, in the communist threat.
39:05At the time, the main battle between the Soviet Union and the United States
39:10was the conquest of space.
39:12America's leadership on Earth demands leadership in space.
39:17American physicists were mobilized to build a military and space program,
39:27science in the service of ideology.
39:30They believed that the work they had done as scientists
39:33had helped to contain the communist threat and protect American democracy.
39:37Then the communist world collapsed.
39:41Victory for America.
39:43And for the physicists engaged in the crusade for its supremacy.
39:47And yet, they didn't lay down their weapons.
39:50Soon after, a conference was held in Washington.
39:53Among the speakers was Fred Singer, a space race pioneer.
39:57However, he wasn't there to talk about rockets, but about the climate.
40:01First, you must understand that there is no real scientific support
40:07for the so-called global greenhouse warming.
40:12When the Cold War ended, they seemed to need a new enemy,
40:17and the new enemy they found was environmentalism,
40:20which they interpreted as a kind of reds under the bed.
40:23What do they want? What is the real goal?
40:26The real goal is political control of the economy.
40:30They're using the so-called climate crisis caused by man
40:33as an excuse to do what they've always wanted to do.
40:36This is about remaking and reforming society,
40:39and it's in a socialist image.
40:40So, the Heartland Institute stands in front of them and says no.
40:45In the wake of the scientists who had embraced an ideology,
40:49the Heartland Institute is clearly the heir of an era.
40:52I'm the kid of the Cold War, right?
40:54Freedom and liberty is precious.
40:57And now you have something like climate change
41:00that actually threatens the existence of life on Earth,
41:03and because it's so fundamental, it requires a significant intervention,
41:06and that's what they can't accept.
41:09Why?
41:10Well, because if you're emotionally invested in free markets,
41:14then climate change is a serious emotional threat,
41:18because dealing with it means we have to change our approach to business.
41:22And for some people, that is extremely challenging.
41:27It entails giving up airplane travel.
41:29It entails giving up combustion automobiles.
41:32By the way, that means destroying one-fourth of your cars,
41:35destroying one-fourth of your power plants.
41:37I think our way of life is at risk.
41:40And the scientific reason just isn't there.
41:43Our way of life, our frenzied consumption, our production methods,
41:49these are what we must change if science concludes
41:53that humans are responsible for global warming,
41:56which is unthinkable to some.
41:59Science, sure, but not the science that threatens our beliefs and values.
42:09Not if it stops us from living happy and carefree lives.
42:14And what if, inside of us, we also had a need not to know?
42:18Psychologists have clearly identified the individual cognitive mechanisms
42:27through which, unbeknownst to us,
42:29we construct our beliefs and limit our own knowledge
42:33by turning our brain into a small factory of ignorance.
42:38A professor of psychology at Bristol University in the United Kingdom,
42:52Stefan Lewandowski explores the complex relationships
42:55that we have with science.
42:58He wonders how to deal with a scientific consensus
43:01that doesn't suit us.
43:04If people are threatened by the science,
43:06but they recognize that all the scientists,
43:08nearly all the scientists agree on that,
43:10then they're put into this situation of conflict
43:13or cognitive dissonance.
43:15What am I going to do with my beliefs
43:18when all the scientists agree that, you know,
43:21my beliefs are under threat?
43:23Hi, you must be Ellie.
43:24I'm Steve Lewandowski.
43:25Welcome to the experiment.
43:26Thanks for coming.
43:27The professor is carrying out an experiment.
43:30He receives subjects willing to take part.
43:32Thanks for coming.
43:33Let me show you the lab.
43:34It's right here.
43:35Seat in front of the computer place.
43:39So what I want you to do is just read through that
43:42and then click at the bottom when you're ready to proceed.
43:46With each of them,
43:48he firstly wants to assess their behavior
43:50when confronted with scientific issues,
43:52their political leanings and their appetite,
43:54or not, for conspiracy theories.
43:56To do so, he exposes each subject to dozens of affirmations,
44:00and they say whether or not they agree.
44:03There is no such thing as facts anymore.
44:05Secret organizations can manipulate people psychologically.
44:09Socialism has many advantages over capitalism.
44:12Out of 100 climate scientists,
44:14how many do you think believe that CO2 emissions cause climate change?
44:18So this is where we now analyze the data from the experiment in real time.
44:23The results show a correlation between their opinions on scientific issues,
44:28their political beliefs, and the size of their appetite for conspiracy theories.
44:32When asked to explain why there is a scientific consensus,
44:38they will resort to conspiracies whenever the scientific consensus is in conflict with their worldviews.
44:45On vaccinations, climate change...
44:47To explain away the scientific consensus,
44:50it is extremely helpful to just basically say,
44:53well, the scientists are all engaged in groupthink,
44:56or they're pursuing a political agenda.
44:59They're all sort of in a little bit of a conspiracy.
45:02The moment I do that, I can cling to my beliefs,
45:05and I can dismiss the scientific consensus.
45:08What is really striking here is that for climate change,
45:12it matters a great deal,
45:14because the more conservative people are,
45:17the more they think that scientists are conspiring to produce a consensus.
45:23Is scientific truth threatening your vision of the world?
45:26Then adopt a theory that says that scientists are all conniving against the truth.
45:34What do they want?
45:35What is the real goal?
45:37They're using the so-called climate crisis as an excuse.
45:40In many scientific subjects, conspiracy theories reign.
45:43And each person proclaims their own theory.
45:46The coronavirus, a bioengineered virus, contains nanoparticles
45:52that can be activated on a time-phased arrangement by 5G.
45:57And the vaccine and nanoparticles are injected simultaneously in your body.
46:03This pandemic is something that has been organized.
46:08The perfect crime against humanity.
46:11And we have a cure. They just don't want to give it out.
46:13Rumors and counter-rumors abound.
46:16Some denounce scientific plots.
46:18Others denounce those who denounce.
46:20Fake news.
46:21Share this.
46:22I love you being in science stage.
46:23Also, I love you being in science stage.
46:25On the networks, it's one side against the other.
46:29Have these confrontations supplanted the slow, meticulous approach of science?
46:43Has it become, to each, their own truth?
46:46You know, if I take this pencil and drop it, we have gravity.
46:52That's not a matter of opinion.
46:55Whatever our beliefs, we can't ignore reality.
46:58The victims of climate change.
47:01The victims of fine particle pollution.
47:04Or those of infectious diseases in places where we've stopped vaccinating.
47:10These faces are a reminder that we cannot ignore scientific truth without consequences.
47:16Facts always impose themselves in the end.
47:19And in spite of everything, our knowledge increases,
47:23gradually building up, in one way or another, through the ages.
47:34A few centuries ago, you had to be a madman to go against common belief
47:38and state that the sun and stars don't turn around us,
47:41but that the earth turns round and round like a spinning top.
47:48Those who first tried to prove this paid dearly.
47:52The works of Copernicus were banned.
47:55Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for life.
47:58And their research crashed head first into a major presupposition of their day.
48:03You must never forget that science is always encastrated in society.
48:08And therefore, the global social context gives him a form of constraint.
48:14300 years ago, new scientific developments had to face off against the church.
48:20Today, it's really the market that has assumed the role of the church.
48:24The market has become that authority that is hard to challenge.
48:27Another time, another setting.
48:33What makes the world go round today is the economy.
48:36When the law of the market replaces that of the church,
48:39what new limits will be imposed on science?
48:44Will this new face off decide which research is accepted?
48:49Of course, there are cases of the researcher caught in a conflict of interests.
48:54The scientist who ceases to remain objective because he's influenced by his financial backing.
48:59But the grip of the economy on science far outweighs these individual cases.
49:05What impact the laws of the market have on research can only be grasped if we look at the big picture.
49:11The market economy frames science in a way that values and privileges science that can be monetized, that is lucrative.
49:30The researchers must generate money and find it.
49:35And so, science has turned into a marketplace where everyone is trying to attract attention.
49:40All the labos, in general, are competing.
49:54They must be able to value their specificities and find the key words that are a little bit in the mode.
50:01In the early 2000s, the key word was the genomics.
50:05If you said that you worked with the genomics and that it would have a medical consequences,
50:09you would have millions of dollars.
50:12So, in 2000, the researcher would say the word genomics.
50:16In 2010, he would say nanotechnology.
50:20In 2020, he would say artificial intelligence.
50:23Okay, Sophia. I think you're ready.
50:30The competition today orientes the science in a certain direction.
50:35They upgraded my mind a bit.
50:37My artificial intelligence.
50:39This is too cool.
50:40I can walk.
50:42And so, during that time, there is a whole bunch of unknown domains that remain in jasher.
50:51Less fashionable or less profitable in the short term, certain scientific fields have been deserted.
50:56Some researchers have identified what they call the problem of undone science.
51:07Now, that's science that's simply left uninvestigated because there's little commercial imperative in studying it.
51:15Undone science.
51:17Undone science.
51:18Science that simply isn't done.
51:21The experiment never carried out.
51:24The lab that never opened.
51:28The epidemiological study that doesn't exist because it was never financed.
51:34The scientific books never written.
51:37The medical thesis never published.
51:39These are the vast territories of ignorance, which we don't explore because they don't earn,
51:45because we prefer not to know, or because we never even imagined them.
51:49Our need to know is limitless.
52:05And our wonder at science permanent.
52:09But we also see science under threat.
52:12A virus spreading and scientific denial spreading with it.
52:17COVID-19 is not an issue.
52:19It's not that lethal.
52:20And it's not an issue for many doctors.
52:22Controversies multiply and hinder our understanding.
52:27Fear, fear, fear.
52:32Go and get some...
52:35Miracle cures appear.
52:38The coronavirus, you know that, right?
52:43Coronavirus.
52:44Biased beliefs enter minds.
52:47This is their new hoax.
52:49We can see the workings of this manufacture of ignorance, which the pioneers of agnotology methodically dismantle for us.
52:57And so I guess one question we could talk about is, why does that work?
53:00They speak at the world's most prestigious universities, and they're now listened to on forums, at roundtables, in the media.
53:07And more and more at parliamentary commissions and inquiries.
53:14My testimony is based on 15 years of research on the history of climate science.
53:18There are still only a few.
53:19But for us, the general public, they're a new force we can count on.
53:28They're developing tools and methods.
53:31And they're shedding light on ways to protect a common asset.
53:35Science and its meticulous progress.
53:38Science and its meticulous progress .
53:40Science and its meticulous progress .
53:42Science and its munitions.
53:43Mount Shack.
53:45Point Dirt.
53:46There is nothing that's made.
53:47Imagine if somebody's got the idea of life-changing from our planet.
53:48And he'soli-lucky.
53:49It's a memorial for the last days of the planet.
53:50It's a memorial for the planet.
53:52The planet is in the rien and the universe.
53:53And the universe.
53:54The planet is a place in nature.
53:55The planet is in the universe.
53:57And the planet is in the universe.
53:59E aí
54:29E aí
Seja a primeira pessoa a comentar