What Are The World’s Biggest Problems?

In September 2015, the United Nations launched their 15 year plan to make the world a better place. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are focused on improvement and longevity, and are a focal point of The UN Week in New York City. Additionally, a number of Summits provide the opportunity for world leaders to cooperate in achieving these global goals. So, what exactly are the world’s biggest problems? Well, first and foremost, poverty is an inescapable issue for nearly all developing countries. Roughly 1 in 7 people around the world live on less than $1.25 a day, and nearly half of the global population lives on just $2.50. While about a third of the world’s poor are located in India, only 10 countries house 80% of the poorest people on earth.

Closely tied to poverty is the issue of hunger. Inadequate nutrition contributes to nearly half of all child deaths worldwide, and in regions like sub-Saharan Africa, one in four people are malnourished. As a result, nearly 800 million people do not have access to enough food to live healthy, active lives. Similarly, water and sanitation are absolute necessities. Yet nearly the same number of people without access to food, lack access to water. And a third of the world’s population risks disease by not having adequate sanitation. Another major issue for developing countries is a lack of educational opportunities. The UN predicted in 2011 that if all students had even basic reading skills, world poverty could be reduced by more than ten percent. But illiteracy is an asymmetrical problem, and affects considerably more women than men. Of roughly 780 million illiterate adults worldwide, two thirds are female. As a result, women have considerably fewer opportunities, and it hurts a country’s ability to progress economically without a fully educated workforce.

This inequality is rampant, and not exclusively relegated to gender. Economic inequality is also drawn along racial and social divides. Countries like Namibia see only a few thousand white landowners owning almost half of the country’s agricultural land for a population of more than 2 million. In fact, land distribution has become an increasingly relevant issue. With man-made climate change, deforestation, and overfishing, the rapid environmental decline might be too late to reverse. Although organizations like the UN have implemented standards, and worked to save forests, oceans, and the atmosphere, it continues to be a serious issue for the international community. The UN Summit’s 17 global goals span from micro to macro, and hope to contribute to solutions for the world’s biggest problems. Through communication, training, and financial support, it is up to influential world leaders and average citizens to seek to improve the world. Since addressing issues like poverty and hunger, most countries have made considerable progress on every set goal.

So we know that the United Nations has been effective working on these issues, but HOW effective has it been? Find out in our video. Thanks for watching TestTube! Don’t forget to like and subscribe so you don’t miss out. We’ll see you next time..

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming

Weather Channel Founder Backs Trump, Tells The TRUTH About Global Warming President Donald Trump has been excoriated for his decision to have the United States exit the Paris Climate Accord. However, one very influential man � John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel � has his back. TAA reports: In a series of tweets and emails Coleman sent to Al Gore and various Democratic supporters and organizations, he called out climate alarmists with a barrage of facts based on actual science and not wishful thinking As it turns out, if you chart global temperatures back into the �70s, there are absolutely no signs of global warming. There�s been less than one degree temperature change since 1978 and no warming to speak of since 1998. So where is the government getting their information from? It turns out that the government has been manipulating climate computer models.

This means that the American tax payers are being charged $4.7 billion a year in taxes that are being used to fund organizations that carry out meaningless studies based on bad science. Basically, the American people are paying fake scientists to lie to them. Find out more in the video below. Government actions to counter �carbon pollution� have raised the cost of fuel, electricity and food by an average of $1000 per year for an average American family of four. If that family of four would only open their Internet browsers and see that the Antarctic Sea is at an all time high and sea levels are rising at an �alarming� rate of around 6 inches per century, they would feel outraged that they�re being taken advantage of, at least one would hope. President Trump was right to leave the Paris Climate Accord � they lie to American taxpayers and waste trillions of dollars..

 

Is Free Trade Bad For The Economy?

Throughout the 2016 election, candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have had clearly divided and opposing views. But one topic on which they share their opposition is that of free trade agreements. Many people have demonized free trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP in the last year. So, what exactly are free trade agreements and what’s so bad about them? Well, first it is important to realize that the world economy, and by extension standards of living, are dependent on international trade. In practice, countries which produce more usually do better economically, and many countries enact trade rules which favor their own production. For example, in the 1920s, European farms were able to sell agricultural goods to the US very cheaply. This undercut American farmers, and so Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which raised taxes on imports. This artificially made foreign goods very expensive compared to domestic goods, now favoring the American farmer. Laws and rules like these are called “protectionist”.

Free trade agreements are, at their most basic, a series of compromises between countries. They remove protectionist restrictions and taxes, but also work to keep participating economies from falling apart without them. Most countries are members of the World Trade Organization, which regulates international trade agreements, and maintains the global economy. But one of the problems with Free Trade Agreements is that they can also hurt consumers. For example, in 2011, tobacco giant Philip Morris sued the country of Australia for implementing anti-smoking regulations. The company argued that the regulations would violate a portion of a 1993 trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia because plain packaging would diminish their trademark. And even though the lawsuit failed to stop restrictions, it is an example of free trade agreement overreach. A much more common complaint, especially in the United States, is that free trade agreements lead to outsourcing, and a loss of American jobs. When the North American Free Trade Agreement was established between the US, Canada, and Mexico in 1994, it eliminated most taxes on imports and exports between those countries.

This made it cheaper to import food and goods from Mexico than it was to grow or make them in the United States. This led to considerably cheaper goods, and a net benefit for consumers. However, the trade agreement also led to outsourcing those same farming and manufacturing jobs to Mexico. It’s been estimated that one million jobs have been lost to NAFTA over the past two decades. In short, a free trade agreement makes it easier for foreign countries to compete with local production, making everything less expensive according to free market principles. But for those workers who actually have to compete with cheaper foreign labor or resources, they’re often forced to find new work. There are also a huge number of other considerations besides actual trade that go into free trade agreements, like environmental and copyright concerns. In the end, free trade agreements can make goods cheaper and more available.

However, this benefit can come at the expense of thousands, if not millions of jobs. The TPP is one such free trade agreement that has received major criticism. But what exactly is the big deal? Check out our video to learn more. Thanks for watching! Make sure to like and subscribe for more TestTube News every day..

Trump Dismantles U.S. Climate Rules, Virtually Ensuring U.S. Will Break Paris Accord Promises

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. President Trump signed an executive order Tuesday to dismantle a slew of climate rules established by President Obama. If carried out, the executive order will virtually guarantee that the United States will fail to meet its 2015 Paris Agreement pledge to reduce emissions in order to curb the effects of climate change. The executive order marks the first step to undo Obama’s Clean Power Plan to limit emissions and replace coal-fired power plants with new solar and wind farms. Trump signed the executive order at a ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency while being surrounded by a group of coal miners, as well as EPA head Scott Pruitt, who himself denies the human impact on climate change. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today I’m taking bold action to follow through on that promise. My administration is putting an end to the war on coal. Gonna have clean coal, really clean coal.

With today’s executive action, I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy, to reverse government intrusion and to cancel job-killing regulations. AMY GOODMAN: The executive order also ends President Obama’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, which outlined the federal government’s approach to curbing climate change. Trump never mentioned climate change or global warming during his remarks, even though 2016 was the warmest year on record, breaking the record set in 2015. He also only mentioned the EPA’s mission to protect the environment once. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We’re going to continue to expand energy production, and we will also create more jobs in infrastructure, trucking and manufacturing. This will allow the EPA to focus on its primary mission of protecting our air and protecting our water. Together, we are going to start a new energy revolution, one that celebrates American production on American soil.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by Jacqueline Patterson, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, joining us from New Orleans. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Jacqueline. Talk about the effect of this executive order, its significance. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yes, it is so significant. Thanks for having me. So, there are so many far-reaching implications for this rule, if the actions go forward as presented. Certainly—certainly, fortunately, labor experts and market experts say that regardless of this rule, which seeks to release the restriction on leasing of federal lands for coal, they’re saying that it’s not necessarily going to bring back the coal industry. But if it did, the coal industry is so harmful not only to the communities that are host to coal-fired power plants, but also to the very workers whose jobs that President Trump purports to save, including the fact that 76,000 coal miners have died of black lung disease since 1968, while the industry has fought against the regulations to protect them from coal mine dust. So we have those implications. We have implications like the communities that are host to coal-fired power plants are choking down sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, arsenic, lead, not to mention that coal is the number—coal-based energy production is the number one contributor to greenhouse—to carbon dioxide emissions, which is the number one greenhouse gas emission that drives climate change.

So, those implications are significant. AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk about how, in particular, it will affect communities of color? JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yeah, so, for example, African American—68 percent of African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal-fired power plant. And we know that with the emissions, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, they’re known to have a link to exacerbating respiratory conditions such as asthma. We also know that African Americans—71 percent of African Americans live in counties in violation of air pollution standards. And we know that the African-American children are three to five times more likely to enter into the hospital from asthma attacks and two to three times more likely to die of asthma attacks. When we connect the dots in terms of exposure and in terms of the health conditions of African-American children and people, we start to see the ties in terms of the impact, the disproportionate impact, of the coal industry, in particular, on communities of color.

We know that African-American adults are more likely to die from lung disease, but far less likely to smoke. When we put out our report, "Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People," back in 2012, we went around, and we visited with communities that were host to coal-fired power plants. And we heard time and time again from folks who had—half the kids in their school were on inhalers. Half the people in their church were on respirators. I spoke to a fellow in Indiana whose wife had died of lung disease. They lived within seeing distance of a coal-fired power plant. She had never smoked a day in her life. I spoke to a woman whose father worked in a coal plant and who died of lung cancer, but had never smoked a day in his life. So we see these stories—we hear these stories, and we see the statistics. And the disproportionate exposure and the differential impact are clear.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Earthjustice Policy Vice President Martin Hayden, who questioned whether President Trump’s executive order will have a significant effect on the coal industry. MARTIN HAYDEN: [We] are a net exporter of coal, by a long shot. So, producing more coal isn’t going to make us more energy independent. And the other piece of producing more coal—and you saw many of the coal company executives say this last night—that while it may raise coal production some, it’s not going to create many more jobs, because they are more automated today, that the—that the trend has been fewer and fewer jobs in the coal fields, irrespective of how much coal is mined, because they’re using more mechanized approaches and less people approaches. AMY GOODMAN: So, that issue, Jacqueline Patterson, of what the president keeps pushing, the issue of coal jobs? JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yes, so—yes, so, as I was saying at the very beginning, both the labor industry and the market say that it’s not necessarily going to bring back coal.

I was saying what the implications would be if it did, in any way, increase—increase coal production—coal-based energy production in the United States. But then there’s the other side of the fact, that even if we’re exporting coal, and other countries are using coal, as we know, any use of coal burning to produce energy affects climate change overall. And we know that communities of color and low-income communities are more likely to feel the impacts from climate change. And so, whether it’s communities that have poor housing stock, communities that are underinsured, communities that are—whose homes are located in the floodplains, we see that these communities are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and more likely to be impacted by climate change. We know that these communities are often the ones that are—don’t have access to healthy and nutritious foods.

They have food insecurity. And we know that shifts in agricultural yields is another impact of climate change and that—and that this might make food insecurity even greater in these communities. So the far-reaching implications of any type of increase in coal-based energy production are felt no matter where it happens, are felt globally, and particularly in vulnerable communities and vulnerable countries. AMY GOODMAN: We’ve been talking about coal plants, but let’s talk about coal-fired plants. Jacqueline, talk by your own growing up in Chicago. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Yeah, so I grew up on the South Side of Chicago, where there were three coal-fired power plants within a 15-mile radius of where I lived, the Fisk and Crawford plants on the South Side of Chicago and the State Line plant on the northwest side of Indiana. So, unbeknownst to me, really, because, you know, these things are there, and you often just don’t know the impacts of these—of these facilities in your community, I was living in this toxic corridor. And fast-forward to today, when I was doing the work on the "Coal Blooded" report, I visited with the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, PERRO and others in Chicago who were doing work on the Fisk and Crawford plants.

And they had done a partnership with the Harvard School of Public Health. And through the community-campus partnership, they found that 40 asthma deaths and a thousand hospitalizations were attributed to the Fisk and Crawford coal plants, which gave them what the—the fuel that they needed to be able to inform the community, which eventually resulted in the City Council passing an ordinance around clean air and Mayor Rahm Emanuel giving a ultimatum to either clean these coal plants up or shut them down, which eventually did happen. And so, again, I was growing up in harm’s way. My father—my father passed away a few years ago of lung disease. And his doctor specifically cited that it was due to environmental exposures. And now I wonder what the cumulative impact might have been of living on the South Side of Chicago in that toxic corridor with those three coal plants and other toxins in the air. AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Jacqueline Patterson, just the overall broader issue of cuts to the EPA and the whole direction the Trump administration is going? And, I mean, he signed this executive order at the Environmental Protection Agency, which he said he is going to slash by almost a third.

This is with the acquiescence of the head of the EPA—right?—the former Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt, who sued the EPA 14 times before he’s now become its head. JACQUELINE PATTERSON: Mm-hmm, yes. And unfortunately, not only—if it was just slashed off of the EPA budget in general, that would be bad enough. But the fact that it’s targeted slashing of environment justice programs, that are meant to protect communities like Mossville, Louisiana, which is in this petrochemical corridor, which is a cancer cluster, which has already these existing impacts for their community, communities like Uniontown, Alabama, which, again, has multiple assaults in terms of its environmental exposures, the communities across the nation that are, again, disproportionately communities of color, disproportionately indigenous communities and low-income communities, communities in Appalachia, who are suffering under the impacts of mountaintop removal and so forth and so on.

And so, the Environmental Protection Agency, as we—as per its name, it is there to ensure that we have the monitoring and the enforcement of safeguards for our health and well-being. So I shudder to think what the impacts will be if that agency does not serve that function. AMY GOODMAN: Jacqueline Patterson, I want to thank you for being with us, director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program, speaking to us from New Orleans. This is Democracy Now! When we come back, the House votes on internet privacy. Stay with us..

Paris climate agreement clears final hurdle to implementation

One of the major issues at the United Nations this week is tackling climate change. The landmark Paris climate agreement passed the final hurdle to implementation,… coinciding with a new report on countering climate hazards. Oh Soo-young reports. The Paris climate agreement will enter into force on November 4th,… becoming the first universal treaty on combating climate change. The UN confirmed on Wednesday that the landmark deal will be ratified by the European Union, Canada and Nepal,… surpassing the threshold of countries accounting for 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions needed for the treaty to take effect. The main goal of the agreement is to keep the rise of global warming to below two degrees Celsius… while trying to limit the figure to one-point-five degrees Celsius. It also aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to carbon reduction goals specified by each member state.

The deal was reached in December last year by 195 parties to the UN conference on climate change. Since then, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has pushed for its rapid implementation as a crucial part of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals,… which aim to improve lives across the world through positive changes in health, education, income and the environment. In a new report released Monday, the UN said more than four-point-two billion people have been affected by weather-related disasters in the last two decades. Developing countries incur the biggest losses,… with hurricanes, drought and other climate hazards resulting in environmental and socioeconomic consequences,… and knocking off about 5 percent of GDP. The report stresses the need for governments to produce more transformative policies. “Transformative policies are the kind of policies that help build their resiliencehelp , close inequality gaps, provide access to financial services, to diversification of livelihoods, quality education, health and social security.

” The next climate conference will be held in Morocco on November 7th,… when countries will report on their emissions reduction goals and national climate plans. Oh Soo-young, Arirang News..

UN report: Trump’s election may hurt Paris Climate Agreement

The election of a U.S. president who has called global warming a "hoax" alarmed environmentalists and climate scientists raising questions about whether America, once again, would pull out of an international climate deal. UN Up and Close this week: Our Oh Sooyoung. Donald's Trump election as the next U.S. president may thwart global efforts to effectively tackle climate change. That's what many climate experts fear could happen, based on Trump's outspoken opposition to the Paris Climate Agreement which entered into force last Friday. After 20 years of negotiations, the landmark deal was reached in December of last year by more than 190 countries which, for the first time in history, agreed to legally-binding limits on the rise of global temperature — no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The deal also aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions as well as help developing countries tackle the severe impacts of climate change by mobilizing funds from higher-income governments. While President Obama has made tackling climate change one of his key priorities and part of his presidential legacy, President-elect Trump has on multiple occasions dismissed the concept of global warming as a hoax and pledged in May to cancel the Paris Agreement.

Under the accord, the U.S. has pledged to reduce emissions up to 28 percent by 2025 and contribute three billion U.S. dollars to the Green Climate Fund which will support clean energy systems and climate protection measures for developing countries. While the U.S. cannot pull out of the Paris Agreement for at least four years,… there are no sanctions or repercussions if it chooses to neglect its commitments in the meantime. "Between the U.S. and China, now climate change has been elevated into not only an environmental issue but a geopolitical one between the most important two countries in the world. We urge the next U.S. president to take that into consideration." The UN's annual climate conference began on Tuesday in Morocco,… gathering representatives from nearly 200 countries to discuss specific ways to implement the Paris Agreement. But with the possibility of the world's second largest carbon emitter backing out of its commitments, it remains uncertain whether the world will see meaningful progress on fighting climate change.

Oh Soo-young, Arirang News..

Trump pulls U S out of non binding Paris Climate Accord — Here’s why he was right to do it

Trump pulls U.S. out of non-binding Paris Climate Accord � Here�s why he was right to do it by: JD Heyes Far-Left Democrats and so-called �environmentalists� who still believe the global warming hoax are furious at President Donald J. Trump for keeping his campaign pledge to withdraw the United States from the �non-binding� Paris Climate Accords signed onto by the Obama administration. But perhaps after they calm down and allow their blood pressure to return to normal, they can take a rational, reasoned look at why the president made his decision; if they afford him that courtesy, there is no way they can conclude that his decision was wrong. In making the announcement from the White House Rose Garden Thursday afternoon, Trump stated that he felt obligated to withdraw from the agreement � which should have been sent to the U.

S. Senate by Obama to be ratified as a treaty, because that�s what it was, in both style and substance � because it is �a bad deal� for American workers, taxpayers and companies. (RELATED: The Paris Climate Accord is GENOCIDE against plants, forests and all life on our planet) Trump also knocked the cost of the agreement � which will rise to some $450 billion a year, much of which would have to come from the U.S. � while major polluters who are also signatories to the deal do not have to comply with the accords� emissions limitations for more than a decade. Meanwhile, the U.S. has to comply immediately. The president also lashed out at his critics who said pulling out of the deal would be a disaster for the country, noting that remaining in the agreement would cost American families and businesses billions per year. Also, he said, the agreement prohibited the U.S. from �conducting its own domestic economic affairs� by preventing the development of our own natural resources, like clean coal and natural gas, both of which create far fewer emissions than other forms of energy.

�I was elected to represent the people of Pittsburg, not Paris,� Trump said. �It�s time to pursue a new deal that protects� the environment, as well as the American people. Trump, according to various experts and analyses, was right to withdraw from the current agreement as written. �Through a litany of regulations stemming from the agreement, Obama has essentially offered up the U.S. economy as a sacrificial lamb to further his own legacy,� Americans for Tax Reform noted Wednesday in a post on its website. �Sadly, the agreement will not just hurt the country�s growth as a whole, but will trickle down to low-and-middle income Americans. As a result of the agreement, energy costs will skyrocket, in turn raising the cost of utility bills for families and increasing the costs of consumer goods.

� (RELATED: UN official actually ADMITS that �global warming� is a scam designed to �change world�s economic model�) A study of the agreement by the Heritage Foundation, released in April 2016, found that the agreement would have resulted in the adoption of government policies that dramatically increased electricity costs for a family of four between 13 and 20 percent annually. In addition, the analysis found that American families would lose out on some $20,000 in income by 2035, regressive (not progressive) economic policies that no doubt would hit the nation�s poorest the hardest. [Meanwhile, we�re sure that Obama won�t have any trouble paying his electric bill, no matter what it costs] Other analysts, as Trump noted in his speech, noted that the loss of U.S. annual gross domestic product would be close to $3 trillion by 2035, while reducing employment in the U.S.

by about 400,000 jobs, half of which would be in manufacturing. But perhaps most galling of all is the fact that even the far Left admitted that the agreement would accomplish virtually nothing � and certainly was not the global carbon emissions destroyer its principle advocates made it out to be. Politico Europe reported: In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth. As Trump said, �The agreement is a massive redistribution of wealth from the U.S. to other countries.� There is no good reason to remain in it, just as there was no good reason for Obama to have signed it..

 

How does climate change hit poor countries?

In 2015, the world reached a historic deal to limit the temperature rise below 2 degrees celsius. Historically, rich countries are responsible for two-thirds of the CO2 emissions but today, poor and middle-income countries already account for over half of total emissions. Global warming does far more damage to these countries than industrialised economies. 80% of people exposed to river flooding worldwide come from just 15 countries, all of which are in developing areas. According to NASA, global sea levels have risen by about 20 cm since 1880, and are projected to rise another 2.5 to 10 cm by 2100. 10 of the 15 largest developing cities are in low-lying coastal areas, vulnerable to rising seas. But there are other ways in which global warming has a bigger negative impact in the developing world. It exacerbates the spread of diseases which are more prevalent in poorer countries. In Africa alone, 90 million more people could be exposed to malaria by 2030 because of rising temperatures. Weather will also affect farming, one of the main economic activities of developing countries. According to the World Bank, agricultural yields will be reduced in Sub-Saharan Africa by 15%, and in South Asia by 18%, while in Europe and the US, only by 2% and 1% respectively.

Fighting climate change is a global responsibility. But poor countries will need financial and technical assistance from rich countries to shift to a low-carbon economy, while promoting development and reducing poverty..

Climate Change Threatens Costal Power Plants With Flooding

America we remembered is a couple years ago in 2011 when there with the tsunami that sent forty-nine foot wave crashing through the nation of Japan and destroying them Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan a new study has come out indicating that a lot of the nuclear power plant a kiss on the east coast to this country could be underwater in just a couple years so a lot of our power plants are built close to water and that's because you have sort of I i'm not a nuclear scientist but something with water just used to wash the staffing but the outer while because of the sea level rise due to climate change or global warming arm is a good possibility that you know we would be a lobbyist and the predicted that the the novice level rather than ever thought would rise to the level where it would affect the nuclear power plant the currently that are currently in operation that are on call in coastal areas but nobody predicted that we would be such a high level high sea level rise because up I'm a changing global warming but it is happening and that means that we can possibly see a lot of our nuclear power plants just like the one in Fukushima and up underwater now there's a particular the couple be that we're talking about there's one particular Salem and hope Creek nuclear generation station which if possible the back and underwater on there's the Turkey Point their Saint Lucie there's Brunswick there's Seabrook their South the South Texas project there's millstone and there's program all that these plans to Turkey Point nuclear which is in Florida in homestead florida could be underwater by 2033 very mysterious issues here the same lose the power plant could be underwater by 2043 the Brunswick steam electric plant could be underwater by 2036 the Seabrook station could be underwater by 2030 these are all new scientific predictions and we don't act now to reverse climate change will never ever ever ever archive you'll never be able to retire recover who have kids born with like 10 like 14 fingers or maybe four fingers where home.

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 .