Trump still denies calling climate change a Chinese hoax after Clinton reopened the issue on Monday’’s face-to-face debate.
Millions of viewers witnessed the first round of face-to-fact debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. As usual it was an interesting verbal exchange between the two presidential contenders.
Analysts believe Clinton had the upper hand on day one of the three-day series of face-to-face debates. Clinton kept her cool and remained focused despite a barrage of interruptions from Trump.
Trump vehemently denied Clinton’s remark that he did issue statements debunking climate change and referring to it as plain hoax.
There is no denying that climate change is real and majority of the people around the globe, unknowingly or not, continue to fan the flames of temperature shifts in the planet. A lot of studies and evidence point to the ill-effects of climate change. Governments have been establishing laws that will help reduce its effect on humans and the environment. Private individuals and groups are getting more involved in decreasing human carbon footprint.
Trump’s actions however seem to contradict his sentiments about man-made climate change. He is planning to put up stone walls around his five-star Ireland golf complex which overlooks the Atlantic ocean and Dough Mor beach. Doing so would protect his property from further erosion due to frequent storms and rising sea level in the area. It’s a decision premised on catastrophic effects of climate change.
Trump’s penchant for disproving scientific facts isn’t limited to climate change. He has made earlier statements refuting factual info on energy, vaccinations, and even sleep. This has led some to conclude that the Republican nominee may have a below-average understanding of scientific facts.
Other sectors believe he is simply indifferent about some scientific issues and more often than not choose to rely on sentiments than on scientific data.
Trump’s denials as well as prior attempts at calling scientific facts as plain hoax may be seen as a red flag among the electorate.
Would a country do well with a leader who frowns upon important scientific data and regards these as trivial or much worse, false? The answer is quite obvious.