 A minute before, we have a talk by Bernard Swingdo, who was a medical doctor also. So great contributor to the understanding of the impact on human health of climate change. Also a member of the French Medical Academy. And he has written some nice book. Unfortunately, they are in French. One is entitled, Can Man Adapt to Himself? Which I find interesting question. And maybe if you have time, you can translate that book so we can have it for the room orders. So I have to say that there is an information we didn't quite get at the first time. The cafeteria closes at 2. And we'll be finishing at 1.30. So that means that you shouldn't waste time when climbing the stairs and getting to your lunch break. Sorry for that. Bonjour. I'm French, despite my name, which is a Flemish, not so part of France. I was director of research at Zinserm, like Isabelle. But a long time ago, I'm a head of Isabelle, as you can probably see. I was past president of the Federation of European Physiological Society. And my expertise in the field of climate change came mainly from participation in several working groups, one of the in the French Academy of Medicine, the other one in the Auto Autorité de la Santé, which is the highest authority in France to drive a policy in health. And also several other groups like that. So OK. I will be rather condensed and brief. When you see the details, the reference of everything that I'm saying in my book, my book is in French. I'm sorry for that. But I was publishing in English for all of my life. I've published about 250 papers. But now I'm too old and too lazy to translate my book in English, and I don't think I will do that anyway. So if you learn a solution for you, it's to learn French. I will introduce my tool by a few assessments, which could be useful for those of you who are not scientists or would like to be scientists or journalists, if you think. And you will see it's not so common. You probably, you are certainly like me, like everyone, submerged in floated by the false information, the fake news. Internet is the main source of the fake news. How can you make a diagnosis between a scientific paper and a suspicious information? I will give you not all the key, but a few useful key. The first is the reference system. It's not perfect, but there is nothing better. And the impact factor is not the best. You could be a very good scientist without paper, with paper, a low impact factor, but it's very rare. And if you are, let's say, if you practice science since 20 years, if you have no paper with a high impact factor, you are not so good. They are not so good if you have a look on the internet. To the full, first paper, Nature Science, New England Journal of Medicine, for example. And there is also some other classification for mathematicians, it's not the same, for example. You can also get a look on the author information, on the institution. If they come from a very good group, very long, well, it's a priori good papers, but not a posteriori, but a priori. The main phasor of the scientific data is reproducibility, doubt, doubt is important. Holistic affirmations are suspicious. And also a few consensus. Actually, for example, when I was starting research, tobacco was not supposed to be toxic. Now there is a consensus, tobacco is clearly toxic. When Galileo publishes for everyone, saying that the earth was flat, we have a consensus earth is not flat. So it's around that. But there are still people saying that the earth is flat. It's not so, it's not so. Suspicious papers, suspicious information, are by decreasing degree of suspicions, various gurus. There is a lot of them in France, in Italy, or so I know some of them. Predators journal are a new sort of gurus. This is a journal with no real editorial or reference system. As all scientists, every week I'm asked to be a member of such a journal. Be careful of the predator journal. We have recently Arte, which is a TV show, who will present a wrong, absolutely scandalous interview about the statin, for example. Many books have only been selected by the editors with no reference system. They are not a springer, for example, as a reference system. But there are books published by some editors and others. They are journal with a very low impact factor. Below two, be careful. And a few characteristics also of this data is a non-reproducibility. You have just one paper and nothing else after. Holistic information, plot theory, you see a scientific person say, yes, perhaps I'm not wrong. But the papers, we say, it's absolutely true. Be careful. And the origin is not documented. Francois Jacob, the Nobel Prize in a paper which I like very much, Evolution and Tinkering in Science, says, science attempts to confront the possible with the actual. The price to be paid for this outlook or ever turned out to be high. It wasn't perhaps more than ever renouncing a unified world view. This results from the way science proceeds. Most of the other system of explanation, mythic, magic, or religious, generally encompass everything. They apply to every domain. They account for the origin, the present, and the end of the universe. Science operates by detailed experimentation with nature, and this appears to be less ambitious. And at least at the first glance, it does explain at reaching at once a complete and definitive explanation of the whole universe. Instead, it looks for partial and provisional answers asking limited questions and turned out to provide more and more general answers. You must remember that when you read a paper which looks not so clean. You must also remember what is the bullshit asymmetric principle of Bondolini. Bondolini is, I think, is still alive. An Italian programmer who made a very nice lecture a few years ago, which has been reported in Nature. You have the reference there. He said, the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce bullshit. And remember that is very frequent. And I experienced myself, for example, I was involved in the fast debate with climatoseptic, with creationists, and also with cortisol septic. And I suffer a lot of that period of time with this debate. Now I'll get to the positive things. What ecology means. Ecology is a really new padding. And I'm quoting there a paper from a French philosopher, which I love very much, and probably several of you know him, Edgar Morin. Ecology is now the first systemic and transdisciplinary sense. This is why Isabella was asking, ecosystem, what is it? Ecology is a network in which every constituent are a member of a global system whose characteristics have a retroactive effect on the constituent. That's very important because ecology now is for people as well as a sort of reverse of what I think at the first time in my career, I was thinking just about one person, one thing, one species. Now you have to think about one system. And it's a spontaneous organization without central headquarters, which is auto-regulated thanks to the complementarity and the antagonists. This is very important for you. The society itself is a complex. You remember perhaps that complex means wave the risk. It's a tissue. This is a complex. Wave, risk. And we have always to consider every particular data within the rule in which it's located. Now go to the risk, the medical risk, of course. But you do remember the reality and the representation of the risk. The two major world risks are the nuclear, civil, or military. This is, for all of us, an incredible risk which has no units and another and the climate risk. But you must also add the poverty. The level, the poverty from the prognosis of lung cancer in a rich Berlin industrial or Parisian industrial as compared to a poor man living in the center of Africa has nothing to do. The same cancer is a better prognosis in the rich industrial, not only because he's in a rich country, but also because he nowhere to go. He know what to do. He know what's the attitude. He ignores the stupidity that people could say around him. And the representation of the risk, you win the climate. You have to remember one thing, important. We have the privilege to have a group which is in the IPCC, the Intercontinental Planet on Climate Change and scientific data. This in French is GIEC. The IPCC is an absolute model of scientific research. It covers, it's a group of people reading everything on the climate, which is for, against, doesn't matter. They read everything and they send a report which is a perfection, nothing else. And you must believe when someone says something which is not like the GIEC says, the IPCC says, be careful. The IPCC really give us the best information that you can provide. Actually, the president of the IPCC and the vice-president is a French woman, which I know very well. She's a very careful, she read everything. And the summary of that, the confines you learn on the internet, is absolutely unique. And, versus, the SOPI Ecology, the Nyan Nyan Ecology in French, the Nambi Pampi Ecology, I had this name, this word in English, in English. You can, of course, avoid to kill a mice on the road for, because of Ecology's reason. But first of all, remember, Ecology is a political problem and you have to choose your politician yourself. You are the only one to do that. You have to select yourselves among the people who are able to change something. Not, of course, you can take care of the fog of little things. This is not so important, but the choice, political choice, actually, is absolutely determinant. So the solution is planetarian. It's a planetarian solution at the political level. You can use a bicycle, respect the flower, but utilize, above all, your right of vote, your voting right. First part, I will say more about the risk generated by the human activities. The climate risk. I will be very brief. This has been explained several times. This is a report, in fact, summary of the last report of IPCC. So it in process is no more discussed by climatologists, but it is discussed by Donald Trump. We must say that also. The main origin is an increase in CO2 and other gas, many as methane, the increase in CO2 is due to the human activity. We have absolute proof of that by isotopic repartition, for example, orate gradients. This is associated with a reduction of glacier, elevation of the sea level, acidification of the oceans, deoxygenation of the oceans, and an increase in severity of several of the dryness, floods, cyclones, and recently, possible change in the Gulf Stream flow. In parallel, the overall diversity of metazohair is reduced. You know that the white bear or the elephant or some flowers are disappearing, but the most important thing is that in the prokaryote kingdom, the biodiversity is modified, but it's not reduced. It's reduced only in a few examples, but in the overalls, we don't know. There is only one book on the biodiversity of the bacteria, and the general conclusion is that there is certainly a modification, bacteria adapt very well to the change in heat. They change their structure, but as you probably know, the microbiota, the bacterial content of our gut, of our highs, of our skin is changing, and is linked to a lot of human disease and may lead to risk like obesity or myocardial infraction and cancer. And this is much more important, and I think this is the most original thing that you can find in my book. I will skip this slide because it did that better than me, but of course, there is a nice and important increase in the heat, you can see there, and in parallel, which is just parallel to the increase in pseudo-content of the atmosphere, but this is not my expertise. So the direct medical consequence of the global increase will be the first part of that, is that the heat waves. Heat waves is a problem for emergency doctors. I have been in charge of an emergency service in the beginning of my career, and at that time, we never see or very rarely see problems with heat, but in France about 10 years ago, there was a heat wave for two weeks, which killed 15,000 people with premature death, and the whole were dying, not really by dehydration, but by its stroke, its stroke, which is a little bit different, its stroke is increased heat in the brain, and even if you rehydrate this person, his brain is higher than 41 degrees, and you have a lot of death. In France, the mortality curve, which is the same in Germany, it's the same in England, it's the same in every European country, the mortality curve, according to the temperature, has a huge shape, so you have high mortality at the high temperature, high mortality at very low temperature, and you have about, in our countries, the optimum is around 25. You don't have only the risk due to the stroke, but your risk also is the skin cancers, the prevalence and the incidence of skin cancer is increasing very, very accurately in every country, and probably more in Africa than in France, than in Europe, and this is mainly to the UVB and C, and more dangerous, because, which are more dangerous, because, but which are usually blocked by the stratospheric zone, the active spectrum in terms of the vitamin synthesis and the retematoes or cancer generation is around 300 nanometers. Protection recommended to prevent, and we know as our global index, this is art, shirts, amber, but creams are totally useless and not reliable, everyone, every there. So if you have some recommendation to tell to everyone, take a hat, take a hat, take shirts, sunglasses, that's all, but then don't leave the cream where they are. The stroke in 2003 in France was not unique, but there was several heat strokes during several presidents here, not only in our country, but also one was very well documented in Philadelphia, there was also one very well documented in China, and again, the heat, the risk is not only dehydration, dehydration because that could be prevented, but essentially an increased central temperature. There are a group in France which is working to try to decrease central temperature by a special machine, and this machine will probably be very useful in the succeeding years. This is a summer, you have the temperature against the time, and this is 2003, between 1975 and 2003, and this is the increased temperature which occurred in 2003 in France, and that killed again 15,000 persons. It was nearly the same in every country. But you have to distinguish very well between the acute episode of heat and the periodic climate variation in mortality, which is a very current medical problem. Everyone knows, since perhaps Galiensis is a well-known, very ancient notion that you have two curves in blue, minimal temperature, in black, the mortality between... You have in blue the minimal temperature in black, the mortality, and between 1984 and 1990. And you can see a few red arrow indicating summer heat waves, and in black, this is the color. And you can see data which is extremely well known that mortality is higher in winters than in summer, but with some peak when you have a heat wave, like in 1987, for example. But this is not a problem of emergencies, it's a problem of routine. In winter, in fact, you have here a mortality due to chronic bronchitis, to stroke myocardial infarction of pneumonia. And you see that the best curve you can see for mortality is myocardial infarction, which is higher in winters than in summer, and there is a nice relation. Of course, for pneumonia, you have the same in stroke. But this is mainly for myocardial infarction, and clearly we don't know why. This is a surprising thing, which is well known, which is extremely well documented, but which is totally unexplained for the moment. Such an approach has to be global, and the risk concerns the whole activity generated by humans. I will explain what I'm saying. The first thing to quote is an extraordinary book. I don't know if it is translated in English, but the book of André Lebeau, André Lebeau passed away two years ago, is an engineer who published a book, L'Enfermement Planétaire. The idea developed in this book is very simple. Planets is closed, we are in the planet, we increase in number, and the same energy is present. So we have to live with, and you have some foolish people, like transhumanists and others, we say, we can colonize, we can go to Mars or another planet, perhaps some, but some very rich person can do that within thousands years or not. We are to survive here, and we have to solve the only solution to that is either to decrease the number of persons, or to use less energy, to be more sober. So you choose yourself, but there is no other solution than this one. We are in a closed, absolutely closed place where the energy we have to consume is limited, and actually we in fact give, in fact, when we increase our consumption energy, we say the economy is active. This is not true, it's exactly the reverse. The economy is good when the energy is decreased, not increased. We must not follow that philosophy, if we can call that a philosophy, which I don't know. The climate change is above all a biomarker of the deleterious consequence of human kind activities. Climate change is the most spectacular and most easily quantified aspect of human activity. The first two parameters responsible for oils and social inequality are social inequality and nuclear power. Demography and aging are the third factor, the solid or air pollutions, the increase of actions, soil, water, and ecosystem degradation, the use of sands or from the deep sea have to be controlled. And in terms of biodiversity, from a medical point of view, the most important change come from, not from a cariot, metasaur, sorry, but from microbial and virus and more than from metasaur or plants. Sorry to recall some, I will recommend to Isabelle, for example, I don't know if you probably know the paper of Mike Michael in New England, Germany. For me, it's the central paper in terms of medical consequence of climate change. Mike Michael in New England, Germany, and medicine a few years ago described very well the impact on population else, impact on the population. The main impact, the first impact, of course, is social inequalities. That's the main responsible of population else. Again, a rich industrial in Paris, Berlin, the Roma, we have the same disease and the poor African of the, or even a poor French, German. This is exactly the same because the regional inequality have to be the same consequence. It has better, better policies. The demographic, you have several groups, it's absolutely impossible to say climate change has just one effect, climate change and effect on skin cancer and so on, but this is not very important. Climate change can have absolutely to be associated with a demographic and social aspect change in population growth, in urbanization, the economic activity and capital mobility and the large and social environmental impact. And social globalization result, in fact, from the increase of several flux that all have else consequence. This is called the big acceleration in the nice book by Ibarred in 2007. And by the social flux, you mean the commercial service, financial information, population and flux in bacteria virus, in bacteria virus. All these flux are more or less connected. The flux in bacteria virus, for example, is very linked to the flux in airport transport. The flux in information is very linked to the flux in medical information and you can connect everything together. It's impossible to consider just one data, the ecosystem, in fact, is not this room, is not this country, is not this continent, is this planet. And this is a strictly closed ecosystem. Merci. I have a second talk, but you can listen. You're okay? No? So, Ben, I want to start your new talk. I think we want to stop and ask the question. Oh, you're okay. So, is there any question in the room? Thank you, Bernard. So, by the way, of human mortality depending on temperature, you show, you show.