On the debate format...the journalist will first tell Trump that global warming is real, and he should react....to which he will have to go into a deny-statement, and then the Democrat guy/gal will already have the question already in his pocket, and provide three minutes of dramatic woeful talking (almost weeping) and sum up the answer.
But like you say...it’s not coming across to regular people or even teenagers. If the world is ending in twelve years, then I’ve got better things to spend my money on (booze, women and trips to Aruba). I wouldn’t hand it to a Democrat to spend to the bitter end.
All Trump has to do is ask the journalist to explain the scientific mechanism of “global warming.” As I suggested in an earlier thread:
Question: can you explain the mechanism by which carbon dioxide stores an amount of solar energy disproportionate to its molecular weight or its concentration in the atmosphere, and describe how that mechanism overshadows other known mechanisms of heat storage in the atmosphere, such that the quantity of carbon dioxide, and no other chemical, is responsible for the climate cycles that have existed on the earth since its formation?
Not a single “global warming” fanatic would be able to answer.
President Trump has a canned response that has worked up to this time.
Journalist : Carbon Carbon Carbon crisis.
President Trump : I stand for crystal clear water and clean air.
Everyone can agree on clean air and water