Donald Trump Believes Climate Change Is A Hoax | All In | MSNBC

>>> PRESIDENT TRUMPMP BELIEVES CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE HE HAS SAID IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. >> SO OBAMA IS TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING AND THE THAT. A LOT OF IT'S A HOAX. IT'S A HOAX. IT'S A MONEY MAKING INDUSTRY, OKAY? IT'S A HOAX. >> THE PRESIDENT HAS TWEETED CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICISM AT LEAST 115 TIMES INCLUDING A CLAIM THAT THE CONCEPT OF GLOBAL WARMING WAS CREATED BY AND FOR THE CHINESE. SO THE PRESIDENT HAS VERY FIRMLY ESTABLISHED HIS POSITION ON THE ISSUE AND HAS SHOWN NO INDICATION THAT HE HAS CHANGED THAT POSITION. BUT SINCE THE PRESIDENT'S VIEWS TEND TO BE MALLEABLE, LET'S SAY, REPORTERS HAVE BEEN ASKING THE PRESIDENT AND HIS AIDES THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN LIGHT OF THE PARIS DECISION.

DOES THE PRESIDENT STILL BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX? >> DO YOU BELIEVE CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX? >> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> CAN YOU SAY WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT BELIEVES THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE WARMING OF THE CLIMATE? >> HONESTLY, I HAVEN'T ASKED HIM. I CAN GET BACK TO YOU. >> YES OR NO? DOES THE PRESIDENT BELIEVE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND A THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES? >> YOU KNOW, WHAT'S I INTERESTI ABOUT ALL THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD THROUGH THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON ONE SINGULAR ISSUE. IS PARIS GOOD OR NOT FOR THIS COUNTRY? THAT'S THE DISCUSSIONS I'VE HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT.

>> I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE FIRST QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED THAT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER. DOES THE PRESIDENT BELIEVE TODAY THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX? >> YOU KNOW, I DID ANSWER THE QUESTION BECAUSE I SAID THE DISCUSSIONS THE PRESIDENT AND I HAD HAD OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON ONE KEY ISSUE. IS PARIS GOOD OR BAD FOR THIS COUNTRY? >> SHOULDN'T YOU BE ABLE TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT STILL BELIEVES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX? WHERE DOES HE STAND? >> AS I INDICATED SEVERAL TIMES THROUGH THE PROCESS, THERE'S ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH WITH RESPECT TO THE PARIS AGREEMENT AND MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.

>> WHAT DOES THE PRESIDENT ACTUALLY BELIEVE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE? DOES HE STILL BELIEVE IT'S A HOAX? COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? >> I HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH HIM AND THEN REPORT BACK TO US AT THE NEXT BRIEFING? >> I IF CAN, I WILL. >> I WOULDN'T HOLD MY BREATH ON THAT ONE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NEW ANSWER, WE MUST, ALAS, STICK WITH THE OLD ONE. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A NOTED AND CONSISTENT PEDDLER OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM MILLIONS OF ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL VOTERS TO PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND TED CRUZ'S DAD POSSIBLY BEING INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK ALSO BELIEVES THE MOST DANGEROUS AND DESTRUCTIVE CONSPIRACY THEORY, THE ONE THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS MADE UP, I GUESS BY THE CHINESE, AND THAT ALL THOSE SCIENTISTS ACROSS THE WORLD MUST BE IN ON IT.

SO IS THAT WHY HE PULLED THE U.S. OUT OF THE PARIS ACCORD OR DI .

The lies of Global Warming

– Begins now 3×1, hier in Brazil TV. I am Luiz Carlos Azedo and today we will discuss the global warming. Our guest is the physicist and meteorologist Luiz Carlos Molion who questions the theories – let’s say, hegemonic in our days – related with this subject. Participate in this interview the journalist Zilda Ferreira, author of the Blog EDUCOM, which deals with environmental education and the journalist Efraim Neto, moderator of the Brazilian network of environmental journalism. <<The Earth, poetically identified as the Blue Planet, located in the Galaxy Via Lactia, orbits in the solar system and is distinguished by its unique atmosphere. Here, in millions of years life has evolved creating a complex system favorable for the existence of thousands of plant and animal species dependent on a food chain. The human being – extractivist – takes its sustenance from the land and the sea.

To enable the agriculture and industry uses various types of energy, obtained mostly from fossil fuels that generate tens of pollutants. On entering the second decade of the new millennium, the greatest challenge of humanity – that is to produce and develop without altering the atmosphere – presents itself as an emergency agenda for all nations. At the recent climate conference in Copenhagen, it became clear that rich countries, emerging or poor need to speak the same language, if they wish truly – in the medium term – contain the aggressions to the global environment.>> – We will start our interview with a question from a viewer. – Why do you say that there is no global warming? – I contend that there is no global warming because it already occurred in the past periods in which they were warmer than now. For example: If we get to the period of the years 800 to 1200 a.C -called Medieval Warm Period – Temperatures were higher than now and at that time the man not released carbon; not emitted carbon into the atmosphere. The Vikings came from Scandinavia and colonized the northern regions of Canada and southern Greenland and are now frozen regions.

So you can see that, that period was warmer than now. Between 1925 and 1946, there was also a very significant warming, which corresponds to approximately 70% of all this warming that – the people say – occurred in the last 150 years. At that time there was an increase of 0.4 degrees Celsius – between 1925 and 1946 – and that very probably due to increased solar activity in the first half of the twentieth century and the fact that in this period practically not occured any large volcanic eruption, so the atmosphere was clean – transparent – and entered more solar radiation and then increased the temperature. Notice! In 1946, after the second World War, the man threw to the atmosphere less than 10% of the carbon that launches today, so it is very difficult to say that the warming between 1925 and 1946 was due to human action. Later – after the war – that, in fact, there was an increase in industrialization, was emitted more carbon, but what happened? A global cooling between 1947 and 1976 and now this latest.

– Dr. Molion, you were commenting on the case of the Vikings, there is a french historian named Pierre Chani who was an expert of studies on European expansion and he said the Vikings not only conquered America because there was a period – immediately after their arrival, in that Arctic region – of cooling of the earth and there is a stream of scientists who defends a thesis against prevailing opinion – which says that there is a global warming – and say that we are on the verge – if we can use this expression – of a new global cooling. Is it? – Perfect. This period, which lasted more or less until 1250 a.C, was followed by what was called the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1350 until 1920. I mean, very recent. – You assign to this cooling the barbarian invasions, because they have turned to the continent, because of cooling. – It was just the opposite, ie, the cold period leads to frustrations harvest and hunger. You have paintings made at that time showing that the river Thames was frozen.

Paintings from 1630 – 1650 show that fairs were made ​​over the frozen river. So, if I look at history, I would say this: that in the last million years the Earth has gone through nine ice ages. Each ice age lasts for a hundred thousand years. So nine times a hundred thousand gives nine hundred thousand. In one million, 90% of the time, the weather is colder than now. These ice ages are interrupted by warmer periods called interglacial. That we are living, Luiz Carlos, began about 15 thousand years ago and all of human history is summarized in the last ten thousand years. So we are in a period, as you said, on the eve of a new ice age. In fact we can be within a new ice age, since this our interglacial is already with 15 thousand years, according to paleoclimatic studies. So, there is a variability So, there is a variation upon that very slow fall that will take one hundred thousand years, practically, to get to 8 -10 degrees below what is today. On top of that there is a ripple of half a degree up, half a degree down. If we have that, as I said from 1925 to 1946, had a ripple down, a cooling from 1947 to 1976 – which was very bad for Brazil and around the world under the economic point of view – and now we had a small increase from 1977 to 1998 The “cue ball” now is the cooling.

– Is there a disparity of measuring instruments among the various periods? – Certainly, certainly. No doubt. – Would be the diagnosis today more accurate than before? – The biggest problem is not that, because when you put those long series, 100 -150 years, from cities like Paris, Vienna, Berlin… these cities were growing and if the thermometer was stuck in the same place, at the same meteorological station it would suffer the effects of urbanization. What is this effect of urbanization? Rains. If the area is vegetated, there is infiltration of water. The water evaporates and cools the surface. When the city then becomes urbanized, the asphalt and concrete causes the runoff of the water, that there will fall. So, today the cities do not have water to evaporate and the same heat of the Sun causes higher urban temperatures than its surroundings. São Paulo, for example, on the order of 3 degrees. There are studies here in Rio de Janeiro that show as well – depending on the region – the order of 3 – 4 degrees.

So, the effect that is known as Urban Heat Island interferes in the temperature. The same thermometer, even if it is calibrated will show higher temperatures. There is no way to eliminate this effect of urbanization on the measure. There is no way to eliminate. They say that if you select a basket of thermometers around the world that is located in the big cities, what will happen is the trend these thermometers show an ever increasing temperature. But when you use satellites covering the whole globe, including oceanic regions, it is shown that in the last 20 years a slight decrease occurred. Excluding the peak of El Niño, in 1997 – 1998, as El Niños tend to warm the atmosphere… – But does it not come back now, this year? – But this is pretty weak and must die now in February, maximum in March and will not affect, the contrary, it must turn to the cold La Niña. So, when you look at the data taken by satellites..

. – So will be the next year a cold year? – Yes, with cold winters. This is the trend, frosts in the south and southeast, cold temperatures and for us here, relatively drier during the dry season, ie, in the period from April to October, drier than the normal. – Professor, our scientific validation with respect to climate studies are based on numerical models… – That is it. – …and our system of climate research has evaluated and provided to society certain results. How do you evaluate this? – Well, Efraim. The models are nothing more than computer programs. Some are very sophisticated coming to have thousand lines, one million rows. These models attempt to reproduce the physical processes occurring in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere of the Earth depends on externs physical processes, eg, variation in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis or earthquakes influence the heat distribution of oceans and also depends on the oceanic processes, for instance, that are treated very badly in these models, particularly with regard to the transport of heat. A climate model, for example, can not reproduce an El Niño. It can not reproduce this variation It can not reproduce this decadal variation of the Pacific lasting 25-30, where the Pacific warms in the tropics and then turns and cools.

The Pacific occupies 35% of the land surface and the atmosphere is heated from below. So, when the Pacific temperature changes, changes the atmosphere and changes the climate. These models make projections, Efraim, upon hypothetical scenarios that will never happen and the models in itself are disabled. So, for example, if I were to believe in this model, I would like to see this model predicting “the past”. Because of the past I already have data, is not it? And they did it, but the error was very large. The current models can not reproduce past climate. So, I have no guarantee that they will predict future climates, ie, model results are useless and do not lend themselves to planning. – Since the 70s, you have been showing the importance of the oceans in relation to climate, this from a global point of view. Since we are talking about climate change from a general point of view, what is the importance of having more advanced studies in relation to the oceans, since it seems to me that this has been of little relevance in relation to the data applied by the IPCC (Intergovermental of Climate Change)? – You are absolutely right, Efraim.

There is a tendency to leave the oceans outside of this climate control, when in reality they are extremely important to control the weather. We are talking about a planet that is 71% covered of water with an average depth of 3,800 meters, ie, this body of water is a huge heat reservoir that softens the climate change, so that the changes are not so big. The differences remained around more or less half degree up, half degree down thanks to the oceans. Recently we – the scientific community – developed a system of buoys – are more than 3,200 buoys – that are special. They dive up to 2,000 meters deep moving with the sea current for 9 and a half days, after they inflate, through a bladder that they have, and start to rise by measuring temperature and salinity. Arrives at the surface and transmits this data to the satellite. So, this system was completed in 2002 and the analysis of the datas from these buoys shows that the heat content of the oceans is declining.

This means that the global oceans are cooling and this cooling will lead to global cooling, not a warming. So, we have two very important factors: The sun, which has a cycle of 90 years and is now going into decline and will be so until the year 2032 and the oceans, which these buoys indicate that is cooling. These two phenomena that are fundamental; two basic controllers of the climate of the Earth will lead to a global cooling for the next 20 years, which is much worse than a warming..

Jim Inhofe – Global Warming Debate

Rob McClendon: Now while there may be some consensus over global warming in the scientific community, in the halls of congress the debate itself is getting pretty heated. Oklahoma Senator, Jim Inhofe, is an outspoken opponent of the Kyoto Agreement that would limit the amount of greenhouse gases the U S could emit. In fact, last fall, as the Senate debated a bill that would have created regulations to combat global warming, Senator Inhofe led the opposition, and went so far as to call global warming a hoax. I sat down with him earlier this week to find out why he feels so strongly about the global warming debate and its threat to our economy. Senator, we hear a lot about global warming these days, but you like to use the word climate change. Why is that? Senator Inhofe: Well, first of all, the liberals like to use climate change just in case they’re wrong and it ends up getting cooler.

Climate change and global warming are actually synonymous. The whole idea is that the alarmists, and I call them the alarmists, the same ones who said back in 1975 that an ice age was coming and we were all going to die, they contend that the weather is getting warmer, and it has since the turn of the century, and that’s due to anthropogenic gases, or manmade gases, CO2, methane, and that kind of thing. So really, you could use the term synonymously. Rob: Now, much of the world is critical of the U S, for not doing more. What would you say to those critics that criticize the U S? Inhofe: Well, I say first of all, that this has been an orchestrated event started by the United Nations back in the late 90s to make people, using scare tactics, think that global warming is coming and all kinds of bad things are going to happen to us. So, when I became chairman of the environment and public works committee three and a half years ago, I thought, let me find out. If it’s going to cost this much money to sign the Kyoto Treaty, as the Horton School of Economics, the Horton Econometric Survey stated, then let’s make sure the science is right, only to find out that almost all of science since 1999 has refuted what one man, Michael Mann, said about the hockey stick.

Remember the thing with the hockey stick?, where he plotted out the temperatures from about third century to the 20th century, then all of a sudden, they started getting warmer? What he forgot to do, he neglected to do, intentionally, I think, was put in the medieval warming period, when temperatures were warmer than they are today. That was around 800 to 1200 AD. Then we went into the little ice age, and came out of that around the turn of the century. Now, if they really believe that there’s a relationship between CO2 and climate change, then how can they explain the fact that the largest emission of CO2 in recorded history occurred in the middle and late 40s, and that precipitated a cooling period, SO SEVERE, that the same magazines like, TIME magazine, who is now trying to scare people into thinking that all the ice is melting and all that, they were writing articles that another ice age is coming and we’re all going to die.

So, the thing has been, well orchestrated, and when I became chairman of this committee I thought, why are politicians so afraid of the environmental extremists? And the answer, I guess, a lot of it is, they’re the ones who pump the money into the campaigns. Rob: Let’s talk economics then. If the U S did adhere to the Kyoto standard, do you think that would make our country vulnerable to other economies that maybe weren’t adhering to it? Inhofe: Well, first of all, we know that China is not going to do it. We know that India is not going to do it. And so if we did it according to the Econometric Survey that Horton put on, that would cost the average family of four 2,750 dollars a year. It would increase the cost of our energy. It would be, almost, economic destruction of our nation.

Would the other countries that are competing with us do it? NO! They wouldn’t do it. China’s not going to do it; they’ve never indicated that they would do it. India’s not doing it. So, it wouldn’t put us in a less competitive position with other countries. Now, let’s keep in mind also, of these some 17 nations in Western Europe, only two have met their Kyoto standards. So, you know, they’re not doing it anyway. Rob: Despite what we hear, both sides of the debate, would it not be prudent, to control the level of CO2, in some way, in the United States? Inhofe: Well, if they can show scientifically that there is a problem with it, then I’d say go ahead and do it. But science is now showing that there’s not a relationship between manmade gases or CO2 and climate change. For that reason, the only justification for using it, is if they can make things more economical, and just the reverse is true. So, I would probably say, no.

Let’s keep in mind, these countries, who signed on to the Kyoto Treaty early on, like Canada, they’re now reexamining their positions. In the 60s, scientists in Canada, are now petitioning Prime Minister Harper to re look at perhaps getting out, since the science is showing that the relationship between CO2 and climate change doesn’t seem to exist..

The Greatest Threat to Existence as We Know it

imagine its a beautiful day in April of 2017 three children in different parts of the world are going about their daily lives as they do every day and as their parents have done for countless generations meet Hiro in Japan Hiro wants to be a successful banker one day just like his father but right now he is more interested in spaceships and planets Abasie lives in Kenya with his parents and grandparents one day he wants to travel the world in his own little sailboat akash lives in india with his big happy family when Akash grows up he wants to be the world's greatest chef and so life goes on hiro becomes an astronaut much to his fathers suprise Abasie travels the world in his sailboat and Akash opened his own restaurant in his home town they grow old and pass on having lived fulfilled lifes their children follow and thier children's children until one day in April of 2100 Akoh and his family are crammed with thousands of other people at Haneda Airport hoping it's not too late sadly the people of Tokyo never had a chance the once-proud city is reduced to rubble by tsunami the likes of which has never been seen Anassa lyes in the dark of his quiet home and he knows his time has come it hasn't rained in months all the crops and livestock have died and the well dried up long ago the people of Kenya suffer the slow death of starvation and dehydration oni draws ragged breaths in his hospital bed his body ravaged by disease is the last living member of his family the population of India has fallen drastically these are a few hypothetical scenarios from various parts of the globe while they may seem unrelated they all share a common catalyst climate change as 2017 begins and the United States presidency changes hands it has become increasingly apparent that the new regime is full of climate change deniers and fossil fuel advocates it is more important than ever to spread real information regarding climate change and the catastrophic effects it can produce within the next 100 years let's start with the common misconception when some people hear the term global warming they'll point to an instance of colder than normal weather like the Sahara Desert recently and say that's ridiculous it's snowing here this objection stems from a misunderstanding of how weather differs from climate weather refers to local changes over short periods of time such as minutes hours days or weeks typical examples of whether include rain clouds snow wind and thunderstorms climate refers to longer-term averages and maybe regional or global in scale and can be thought of as weather averaged over an extended period of time typically years or decades an easy way to remember the distinction is weather is what you get climate is what you expect now that we have a good understanding of how climate and weather differ let's look at the scientific consensus over ninety seven percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree that climate warming trends over the past 100 years are extremely likely to have been caused largely by human activity that number goes up to over ninety-nine percent if you include climate scientists who have not recently published scholarly articles most of the leading scientific organizations around the world have issued public statements endorsing this position there are too many to list in this video so i put a link in the description of organizations and their statements climate change deniers tend to latch onto studies that disprove the trend but you always notice that the studies are either not peer-reviewed come from a known anti-science publisher or come from a scientist in a completely unrelated filled with an agenda of their own so where does this problem come from the largest contributing factor to climate change is the burning of fossil fuels oil coal and natural gas all release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when burned carbon dioxide is considered a greenhouse gas which simply means it sticks around in the upper atmosphere and traps heat the more carbon dioxide is released the more the atmosphere heats up this temperature increase then causes other problems such as melting glaciers and polar ice as arctic ice melts it releases co2 and methane a more potent greenhouse gas compounding the problem by making the atmosphere even warmer the smelting morais it's a vicious cycle ok but where do we stand right now what's the damage as of the end of 2016 carbon dioxide levels are up by nearly 405 parts-per-million the highest in 650,000 years global temperatures up by one point seven degrees since eighteen eighty and nine of the last ten hottest years on record happened since 2000 the tenth being 1998 Arctic ice is shrinking at a rate of 13.

3 percent per decade and land ice is disappearing at a rate of 281 gigatons per year Greenland ice loss doubled between 1996 in 2005 and finally the global sea level has risen seven inches in the last 100 you're probably thinking well that doesn't sound too bad let's look at the consequences by category first the melting of polar ice of course we've all heard that global warming affects the poor polar bears but it's true and it's severe at the current rate of melting which is likely to increase the Arctic is projected to see its first ice-free summer by 2050 imagine that all of the ice gone and yes that likely means extinction for the polar bears within a hundred years and it's not just polar bears some species of ice dependent seals will die off if they can't adapt including harp ringed ribbon and bearded seals then there are the ivory goals and ox ivory goals have already suffered a ninety percent population reduction in Canada over the past 20 years then there's the walrus the arctic fox small plant eaters like ground squirrels hairs lemmings involves large planters like moose caribou reindeer and musk ox and meat eaters like weasels wolverines wolves foxes bears and birds of prey the melting ice is likely to cause a domino effect knocking out species that other species depend upon for food melting ice brings us to our next category rising sea level over the past 100 years the global sea level has risen approximately seven inches the more alarming fact is that the rate of rise in the last decade is nearly double the rate of the entire last century at this rate rising sea level puts coastal cities and islands at great risk SC water reaches further inland it can cause destructive erosion flooding of wetlands contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils and lost habitat for fish birds and plants most projections show the sea level will rise between point 8 and 2 meters by 2100 which would be catastrophic for many low-lying islands and much of the eastern coast of the United States more dire predictions based upon the complete melting of the Greenland ice sheet project a rise up to seven meters that's enough to submerge London the third category is the one with which most people are familiar global temperature rise as CO2 accumulates in our atmosphere the temperature creeps steadily upward the annual increase is measured at roughly 1.

7 degrees Fahrenheit this increase in temperature could cause the most drastic immediate effects of all three categories the list is long and distressing so here we go global warming will cause droughts and heat waves which are already responsible for killing more people per year than floods hurricanes lightning and tornadoes combined it will aggravate the spread of disease warmer weather allows disease bears to be active longer and further abroad warmer ocean temperatures will allow pathogens to flourish as we've already seen with the widespread coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef this coral houses twenty-five percent of all marine diversity and the reef is already declined by fifty percent in the last thirty years when the coral goes we'll lose hundreds of thousands of species dependent upon it for shelter which will collapse much of the marine food chain back on land fishing will suffer droughts will destroy crops and livestock and create a water scarcity pushing farmers and people in rural areas into the city this will cause overcrowding and help spark civil wars that killed hundreds of thousands like it did in Syria GDP is expected to plummet by twenty-three percent by 2100 caused by property damage from flooding droughts wildfires storms loss of productivity loss of tourism and illness you can see how quickly the situation can snowball wildly out-of-control it seems very dire but what can we do is it too late to stop the changes we put in motion it's hard to say for sure but the affect humans have had on this earth is severe and the changes have indeed been set in motion even if we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today global warming would continue for at least several more decades since carbon dioxide can linger in the atmosphere for up to centuries some experts believe we're approaching a tipping point a point at which abrupt perhaps irreversible changes would tip our climate into a new state however it may not be too late to limit some of the worst effects of climate change two important steps are required one mitigation the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and two adaptation learning to cope with and adapt to the climate changes that have already been set in motion recycling and driving fuel-efficient cars are important steps in the right direction but not sufficient on their own it will take a globally coordinated response such as clean energy agreements between nations as well as local efforts on the city and regional level such as sustainable City Planning public transportation upgrades and energy efficiency improvements so yes climate change is the biggest threat to existence as we know it and is deeply troubling that the United States government seeks to normalize ignorance of good science so if you're concerned for the future of the planet and generations to come do your part help spread this information because the earth truly is worth saving if you enjoyed this video please leave a like or a comment and subscribe to keep up with the latest content thanks for watching and we'll see you in the next video.