As for Trump, I'll quite freely admit he wasn't my first choice for President. Heck, he wasn't by 23rd choice for President, and we only had sixteen to choose from.
However, he has one major redeeming quality: He isn't Hillary Clinton. As bad as you might think a Trump administration is, we know for a fact that a Clinton administration would have been far, far worse. Trump may be a buffoon, and perhaps most charitably described as a clown, but Clinton was an unrepentant criminal, and would have continued and expanded the Obama administrations' assaults on the very fabric of the United States.
Only after Obama was out did we start finding out- grudgingly- how he, his DOJ and his Attorneys General lied, deceived, obfuscated, stonewalled and harrassed. Clinton would have kept that status quo and ramped it up to 11.
Trump wasn't, and still isn't my choice, but I'd have voted for a rotting ham sandwich before I voted for Clinton.
As for the climate, of course we have climate change. The climate is always changing, and has been since dirt was still under warranty. It's utter hubris to assume the weather will stay stable "just because we want it to".
There was a time when the area now known as Chicago was under a mile of ice. There was a time, much more recently, that England was so tropical they could grow grapes there. There was a time the upper slope of Alaska was warm enough to support prehistoric lions and panthers. In the 70s, scientists were worried about global cooling.
Yes, manmade sources are putting out a huge amount of CO2- but there were times in earth's past where CO2 concentrations were a thousand times higher than they are now, and those periods didn't enter into a "runaway greenhouse effect"- indeed, they were only slightly warmer than we are now.
The main issue "deniers" have with the GW/CC types is the "sit down and shut up" mentality I alluded to. Being yelled at, called names, insulted, called "denier", having papers banned, having grants taken away, not getting a grant in the first place, etc.
As I said, that's not what science is about. Science is the quest for truth- how does this work, why does that happen, what will happen if I do this. It is NOT determining an outcome, and then only accepting the data that supports that outcome- that, we call a cult, or a religion.
At this point we have hard data: In Al Gore's 2006 film, he said we have "ten years" to save the planet, while she showed pictures of flooding and tornadoes and other disasters. It's now eleven years after that, and the seas have not swallowed New York, Flordia hasn't been wiped off the map by a tsunami, etc.
When Obama was elected, he said we had just "five" years to "save the planet".
And we have another ten years of data to follow up all the predicted models of global warming, during which time the models have simply deviated further and further from observed reality. Representative graphic- note that the temperature, in even that outdated graphic, is not appreciably different, less than a tenth of a degree, from 1995. That's (currently) 12 years of effectively zero additional warming. Moreover, note the graph starts at 1975, which was the end of a cool period that started in the early 1960s.
So yes, things are indeed changing- but nowhere near as much as Gore and other doomsayers have been telling us. We also know that CO2 is not anywhere near as potent a greenhouse gas as we were told, and besides that, virtually none of the climate models took the sun into account, and we're only just now "discovering" (IE, they're only just now admitting) that the sun and it's cycles have a HUGE influence on our climate.
But, we can't regulate, tax or ration the sun, so the GW crowd has to keep the focus on CO2- which we CAN tax, restrict and regulate. (IE, somebody, like Gore, can make billions of dollars off of it.)