A recent Guardian article raised the question if Trump's appointments of climate denialists were more terrorizing than climate change itself. After reading numerous articles and reports over the past decade on the topic of climate denialism and communication, and the book, "Merchants of Doubt," by Naomi Orestes and Erik M. Conway, my opinion is that this article is trying to revive what amounted to a tempest in a teapot, a debate that never was, that never rose to the level of legitimacy to deserve being called a debate, a propaganda attempt to create a false issue that lacked the energy to survive and has already played itself out. Thus the flamboyant use of the imprecise and thought-stopping word "terrorizing" in the title.
The fundamental issue was nicely crystallized by Naomi Klein in her 9 Nov 2011 article in "The Nation," "Capitalism vs. the Climate” -- the realization is too difficult to accommodate for the right- wingers. Effective adaptation to the realities of global warming would mean to change so many aspects of one's life and worldview that, indeed, everything would be changed, as her later book was titled. The fundamental resistance to change of the conservative right thus led to their non-acceptance of the magnitude of adaptation required. The campaign of misinformation, termed "denialism" by Sally Weintrobe in her 2013 book, "Engaging with Climate Change," a campaign funded by fossil fuel interests, conducted by right wing think tanks, hired scientists and public relations communicators, and delineated by Orestes and Conway, was successful in finding ready audiences among those with resistence to change.
But the fickle variances of public opinion cannot change the realities that science works to understand. No matter if despots gather crowds to chant, "No change, no warming, no melting glaciers, no rising seas, no ocean food web shredding, no extinctions, stopped ears and blindered eyes, we hail our strong leader who protects," even if all that, the world turning on its now Anthropocene axis replies something like, "Humans, your trace will be a thin layer of plastic and radioactivity," denials not withstanding.
So, going forward, love remains, day by day, along with opportunities to be in the glorious and tumultuous world, a world that encompasses but is not defined by the discourses of news media biased toward increasing shareholder value -- hardly an incentive with broad enough morality to promulgate acceptance of the hardest truths humans have to face, the probabilities of our species' demise, along with that of our fellow life forms, all of which, in interconnected ways beyond our understanding, support each other in our now-endangered life on earth.