A Serious Question About Climate Change Advice

So hurricanes are getting stronger while the death toll shrinks?

I don't think two hurricanes after such a long gap in deadly strong storms since Katrina in 2005 is enough data to conclude the former. But for a moment let's stipulate that as a fact.

Would we be better off if we had taken the money we spent on being better prepared for storms and responding to them since 2005; and instead plowed it all into fighting global warming, and thus reducing the increase in the global average temperature since 2005 by an amount so low as to be indistinguishable from random changes or instrument error?

Even if the models and predictions of the extent of global warming are correct, we are under no obligation to follow the economic and financial advice of climate scientists in response to that warming, because they will have strayed well out of their lane to be given that kind of authority.

Seriously, people, with renewed calls to punish those who haven't gone full global warming panic out there, are you really telling me that this attitude is a defense of science rather than a case of true believers punishing heretics?

Now go and emit no more.

I generally leave global warming thoughts in the weekend data dump these days. But this seemed like an important enough point to raise in its own post.