On the campaign trail, Trump, a Republican, backed more fossil fuel production in the U.S. and vowed to “cancel” the Paris agreement. He has repeatedly suggested that climate change is a hoax. His Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has called for urgent action on climate change.
There in a nutshell you have the difference between the two challengers for the Presidency of the United States of America.
Some apparently highly intelligent people constantly talk about ‘tackling climate change’. But is this intelligent? This is not a question of science, but a question of definitions and of the correct use of the English language.
Strictly speaking, to talk about tackling climate change is an affront to intelligence and an affront to language. How is climate defined? ‘The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period’. So we see at once that climate is intimately connected to the weather.
Change is defined as ‘make something different’. So, what does all that mean? It means in a nutshell that all those who are fighting climate change want to make the weather static.
Can you imagine anything more ridiculous? It is like saying, ‘I am against tomorrow’. Only an imbecile would make such a statement. Yet we have world leaders, Presidents, Popes and Prime Ministers all trying to stop change.
Of course, the unDemocrats are rioting. They are burning effigies of Donald Trump. These unDemocrats are against democracy, even though they call themselves Democrats. We have the same phenomenon in England. A democratic referendum took place, where the majority wanted to leave the EU. So the unDemocrats are peeved. The same thing is happening on a bigger scale in the United States.
The American people should congratulate themselves in having elected indisputably the most intelligent of the contenders.