Each hurricane, fire or flood poses an opportunity to frighten the public about climate change. In this doomsday environment, insurance companies raise rates and blame "climate change" — a common enemy everyone loves to hate. Politicians demonize fuel and demand we "electrify everything."

"In Maui and across America, climate change and extreme weather are hurting housing affordability," says a CNN headline, followed by "many find themselves now caught in both a housing crisis and a climate emergency."

"The Climate Crisis and Colonialism Destroyed My Maui Home," says a Time headline.

"Climate Change Fuels Wildfires Burning in Maui," declares the title of an Associated Press video.

These bold and omnipresent assumptions worry Americans. The raw numbers, if taken at face value, support this concern. The cost of storm recovery is rising, indeed, just like the cost of housing and food.

Indeed, climate plays a role. Our ever-changing climate has figured into every fire since the dawn of time — even the blaze that threatened the president's Corvette. Long spells of dry heat and moving oxygen favor fire. Cool wet weather disfavors fire. All weather conditions — pro-or-anti fire — relate to climate change.

Stating the obvious in isolation of facts — i.e., "climate change" ruined Maui — gins up support for ideas like "end fossil fuels" and "electrify everything." It's enough to get the public accepting harmful policies — such as abandon fossil fuels in a decade — that cause immediate poverty, homelessness and death. Only irrational fear has Americans accepting radical and impossible goals to dramatically alter human behavior and devastate economies.

As FDR wisely implored, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Trying to tame a climate that has always been wild comes at a cost of property and lives.

When we attempt the impossible, we focus on nebulous, far-future results instead of doing what can save lives and mitigate misery today. Imagine if more of the billions we spend on the climate funded reinforcement of structures. Imagine if more climate change resources went to buying generators, survival supplies and other assets people need as disasters approach.

Imagine spending more climate cash on intense education programs about prevention and survival. Imagine reversing the federal government's notorious neglect of tinder forests.

Emotion clouds efforts to address climate change logically. It veils the harm of radical anti-energy policies. As emotion often does, it makes us irrational.

The tale about soaring rates of property damage, thanks to climate change, doesn't hold up. Oxford scholar and climate scientist Robert Pielke Jr. — former director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder — set out to show how much damage climate change was doing.

Studying damage from 1900 to 2007, Pielke's work incidentally proved climate change does nothing to increase damage rates. More property along coasts combined with inflation accounts for the increase in 107 years.

"There is no long-term trend of increasing damage," says the study, published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

He's not alone among scientists questioning our panic. Princeton professor emeritus William Happer and MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen warn of federal policies that "will be disastrous for the country for no scientifically justifiably reason."

"The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather," the two explain with mounds of supportive data.

Few, including scientists warning against economic suicide, think the climate is static. The climate changes and all life forms play a role in it. We should adjust and adapt, not destroy ourselves with actions based on misplaced fear.

The Gazette Editorial Board

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE

Photo credit: NASA at Unsplash