We are now on the brink of inescapable damage to our planetary life support systems, due in large part to human-induced climate change. Under the umbrella term â€œclimate changeâ€â€”which is commonly measured via increases in carbon dioxide emissionsâ€”exists a host of environmental catastrophes that include soil erosion, deforestation, chemical runoff, land desecration, fossil fuel depletion, ocean acidification, extinction of non-human species, and so on. Meanwhile, on November 8, 2016, the United States of America elected Donald Trump to be their next President. Trump once said, â€œthe concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.â€ Trumpâ€™s stances on climate change fly in the face of nearly all scientific data published in peer-reviewed journals, highlighting the power narrative can have over scientific fact. This study utilizes Walter Fisherâ€™s Narrative Paradigm (NP) (1984), which views humans as â€œstorytelling animalsâ€ and sees narrative as a powerful ontological way of rationality for human beings. NP maintains two lenses of rationality: narrative probability and narrative fidelity. Through a NP lens I interrogate nine mainstream articles from USA Today and The New York Times published exactly one month prior to the election. The articles relate to the climate change stances of Trump and Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Finally, implications are discussed.