Science should inform policy and that policy needs to be determined by people who know enough about the science to correctly interpret the science. The statements of the nominee are indications of intentional ignorance or of moral judgement. While not everyone understands the basic science, those people should not be making policy.
Simplistic arguments based on limited data that does not account both for theory and long term trends are deceptive. Simplistic arguments that do not take into account multiple competing factors are frequently incorrect. For example, fresh water freezes at a lower temperature than salt water and is also less dense.  Therefore, if a lot of melting is happening because of warming we might expect sea ice extent to increase in a warming environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels-despite-global-warming
The science is clear but not trivial.