The ocean question began by citing scientific estimates that 90 percent of fishery stocks are being depleted beyond sustainable limits and many coral reefs, coastlines and other oceanic habitats are threatened by pollution. Hillary Clinton’s response was five paragraphs long, cited statistical evidence and relevant legislation, and concluded with a pledge to “continue leading the global fight against climate change.” One might question whether the United States has actually done that, but never mind. Here is Donald Trump’s response, in full:

My administration will work with Congress to establish priorities for our government and how we will allocate our limited fiscal resources. This approach will assure that the people’s voices will be heard on this topic and others.

So: No mention of climate change, which isn’t exactly shocking. Also no mention of the word “oceans,” the word “pollution” or any of the issues actually raised by the question. I suppose that’s a more diplomatic response than saying, “I don’t give a damn about the oceans and we’re not spending a freakin’ nickel on this issue unless it somehow becomes a political liability,” but not by much.

One has to wonder why Trump even bothered — or rather, why whichever campaign apparatchik actually wrote that bothered. But that non-answer perfectly epitomizes the Trump campaign’s response to ScienceDebate’s pop quiz: Ignore the question or change the subject, defer to “free markets” and popular opinion rather than taking a position, and whenever possible do not repeat the words and phrases used in the question. That latter tactic feels like some kind of tribal right-wing superstition: If you speak the language of the so-called scientists, you give them power. Who says the oceans are dying, anyway? I had a tuna sandwich yesterday!

Come to think of it, maybe Trump did write his answers, since those are exactly the same rhetorical methods he employs when being interviewed. Furthermore, the sheer illiteracy of the prose — I don’t mean scientific illiteracy, which goes without saying, but actual readin’-and-writin’ illiteracy — suggests genuine Trumpian authorship, or at least overlordship. Nuclear energy is described as “part of an all-the-above program [sic] for providing power for America long into the future … its outputs are extraordinary given the investment we should make.” His answer to a question about providing clean water contains this baffling sentence: “We must explore all options to include making desalinization more affordable and working to build the distribution infrastructure to bring this scarce resource to where it is needed for our citizens and those who produce the food of the world.”

As with so many things about the orange-skinned Republican nominee, his refusal to engage seriously with almost any question about the role of science in society presents a dazzling combination of idiocy and brilliance. Paired with Clinton’s lengthy and detailed policy-wonk responses — whoa, check out the nerd! — Trump’s shrug-then-punt answers create a reality-distortion field that is likely to depress the intelligence of everyone who encounters them.

“Science is science and facts are facts,” Trump assures us in his answer to the final question, which is about protecting the integrity of the scientific process from political interference. Even by the elevated standard of Ridiculous Stuff Donald Trump Says, that one’s a howler. His entire campaign has been devoted to the proposition that there are no facts, only impressions or emotions: “Illegal” immigrants are flooding across the border and taking our jobs; crime in our cities is out of control; Islamic terrorism is a massive danger to Americans. If we were to go by facts, we might learn that undocumented immigration has declined so much it may actually have reversed itself, violent crime remains at or near historic lows and many more Americans are electrocuted by household appliances than are killed by radical Muslims.