Five ways a Trump presidency would be disastrous for the climate

This article presents a highly critical view of Trump’s climate policies, suggesting dire global consequences should he return to office. The author’s language choice—terms like “disaster,” “irreversible,” and “purge”—is emotionally charged, aiming to elicit alarm about Trump’s climate stance. The argument assumes a simplistic dichotomy between Trump and Harris, implying that only Harris would enable climate “salvation,” a false dilemma that overlooks potential complexities or alternatives. Additionally, Trump’s positions are sometimes simplified or exaggerated, as with the mention of “nuclear warming,” which veers into a straw man, making his stance appear more extreme. The reasoning is impactful but heavily skewed.