A recent post at The Daily Climate news website, titled “Op-ed: People need shelter from climate change — their health hangs in the balance,” claims that climate change is making it harder for people to stay safe from the elements and extreme weather, and that federal housing policy is how to fix that problem. This is false on multiple fronts. Climate change is not causing an increase in dangerous conditions for people, and federal policies that involve subsidized housing will not protect homeless people from weather threats.
The authors assert that vice president Kamala Harris’ proposals to expand federal housing policies, including using federal funds to build housing and down payment assistance, “is actually a climate change adaptation policy” because people need shelter from extreme weather. The Daily Climate refers to this summer as the warmest on record and hypes an early start to the Atlantic hurricane season, asserting that “it is growing increasingly difficult to weather the many different catastrophes — a critical threat to health — that climate change is throwing at us.”
Continuing, they write that it is also becoming more difficult for Americans “to take refuge from climate threats at home, as the cost of housing keeps rising.”
They point out correctly that homeless people are more likely to become ill and die from exposure to extreme high temperatures because of a lack of shelter and air conditioning. This, however, is not because of climate change. In fact, none of the things this article asserts as threats to American families because of climate change are genuine.
Regarding the “hottest on record” claims, as always, it depends on what record you look at. As Climate Realism points out here, here, and here, these claims are at best speculative, even though alarmists present them as definite. Prior to satellites, there are almost no records outside of the U.S. and Europe. We are forced to rely on proxy data, which again are location-specific, but even so, many of them indicate that there were several periods in just the last 10,000 years that were warmer than today.
Regarding hurricanes, there was a single early powerful hurricane that came outside the normal window, but the rest of the season has been remarkably quiet. Fearmongering on hurricanes this year, as with many previous above average hurricane season predictions in the past, is falling extremely flat. Global tropical cyclone accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) is well within normal bounds this year, according to available data.
But the major point of the article is that extreme weather is posing an ever greater threat to an increasing number of people, and especially American families, than before, and this is simply not true.
While it is true that people who are homeless or who don’t have adequate housing and electricity are more susceptible to temperature related illnesses and death, heat and even more so cold, incidences of of people dying from those conditions has declined rapidly around the world over the past hundred plus years of modest warming. It is especially telling that the article focuses on heat, when it is cold that is the real killer. A 2021 Lancet study found that overall deaths due to extreme temperatures have declined in large part due to a massive drop in cold-related deaths. (See figure below)
Likewise, deaths from climate-related disasters in general has also declined. (See figure below)
Ironically, The Daily Climate post complains about the high costs of utility bills, and therefore air conditioning and heating, which are becoming increasingly expensive precisely because of the fossil fuel policies that these same alarmists promote.
Studies have found that Biden’s EPA rules and regulations targeting power plants are expected to cause instability in the electric grid and lead to massive blackouts, because the expectations of the policies are not technologically sound, or even possible, and will only lead to a reduction of power supply. Wind and solar are not dispatchable power, and battery technology is not anywhere near scalable for what is needed. This causes higher prices and less power reliability, which won’t help anyone trying to handle even natural weather extremes. Indeed, real world data suggests that Biden’s energy and climate policies have driven the recent large increases in energy costs across the board, impacting poorer households the most.
Additionally, the idea that federal subsidized housing will help decrease housing prices in general is economically illiterate at best. Policies like low-income housing tax credits have resulted in higher housing costs and fewer choices, and Obama’s Housing First programs have resulted in more homeless people, not fewer.
Handing even more power to government and more subsidized housing will not solve the problem of homelessness. It’s been done for decades and the issue has only become more severe, it has not improved. Fossil fuels for electricity and materials have made human civilizations far more resilient in the face of the fickle nature of the weather, and as long as markets for energy are not limited or constrained by government climate policy, they will continue to do so. All of this is true regardless of climate change, but even on that point, The Daily Climate missed the mark.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


The Daily Climate, if a paper publication, could serve a useful purpose on the bottom of the parrot’s cage.
But as an Electronic Publication it really Bytes
Very nice Linnea.
And if one uses unadjusted records, i. e. the real history, the 1930’s were the warmest decade in the US. Adjusting records to fit the model is de facto cheating, and making up “infilling” missing records for the rest of the world is Ouija Board level of validity.
“Prior to satellites, there are almost no records outside of the U.S. and Europe. We are forced to rely on proxy data”
Linnea Lueken does not know much. Here is a map of met stations reporting monthly averages in GHCN V4, September 1954:
Before 1920, she is absolutely correct.
She said “before satellites”. 1920 is a long time before satellites.
But Heller maps are nonsense. Here are the stations reporting Sept 1920:
LOL. seems to match Tony Heller’s map quite closely.
Or aren’t you capable of reading basic maps???
Basically nothing covering most of northern Russia, China, any of Africa, any of South or Central America, Greenland, Indonesia, central Australia
Take your foot out of your mouth again, Nick… you are making yourself look STUPID. !!
You’ve misunderstood what Nick is saying. He’s pointing out that Tony Heller has got the colour wrong.
Heller’s maps show nothing in India. Mine shows 50 stations reporting.
Heller’s shows for all S America just something in Uruguay. Mine has 12 in Argentina, 8 in Uruguay, 10 in Chile, 11 in Brazil, etc
Well then, I guess we should have the oligarch run technocracy.
WOW… 41 sites for the whole of South America.
You really are such a moron , Nick !!
And GHCN… lol… take anything they report with a pinch of nose hair.
“41 sites for the whole of South America”
No, in the countries I named. But your plot showed just one site in all of S America.
GHCN? So where did the data in your plot come from?
YAWN.. Rest of South America is basically EMPTY.
Get over yourself Nick.
Being WRONG is your only mode of operation nowadays.
Neglecting of course that Tony’s map is from 1891 to 1920..
Why are you ALWAYS so DISINGENUOUS, Nick !!
Is it just part of being an ex-CSIRO employee??
“Averages”.
a.k.a. “Constructs”.
Not data.
Ergo – “Opinions”.
Average is simply from the sum of the daily measurements at that location in the month.
But for here, it just means that those locations were reporting.
Sure looks like what Linnea alluded to.
Heavy coverage in the Conus
Heavy coverage in Europe
Heavy coverage in Japan
Reasonably heavy coverage in SE Australia
Sparse to minimal coverage for the remainder.
Your map rather proves Linnea’s point
What Linnea said was “there are almost no records outside of the U.S. and Europe”
That is false.
From 1890-1920 it was absolutely true… as you showed above.
Well then she should have said before 1920, not before satellites.
So 1920 isn’t before satellites… really……
WOW.. can you get any more stupid !!
I’m sure you will keep trying to.
It’s called being honest. You should try it.
satellite (n.)1540s, “follower or attendant of a superior person” (but rare in this sense before late 18c.), from French satellite (14c.), from Latin satellitem (nominative satelles) “an attendant” upon a distinguished person; “a body-guard, a courtier; an assistant,” in Cicero often in a bad sense, “an accomplice, accessory” in a crime, etc.
Meaning “planet that revolves about a larger one” is attested 1660s, on the notion of “an attendant,” in reference to the moons of Jupiter, from Latin satellites, which was used in this sense 1610s by German astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630).
So yes, one can honestly state that satellites have existed for a long time before 1920.
So when Linnea Leuken said
“Prior to satellites, there are almost no records outside of the U.S. and Europe. “
what do you think she meant?
Artificial Weather Satellites is what she meant.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
You forgot to define “almost” though. See below. What do you think she meant?
From the simpleton that is hilarious.
You are a rabid leftist, therefore you have NEVER been honest n your entire life.
And the other thing that happens when you are honest is you start feeling good about yourself and before you know it the next thing that happens is you start saying nice things to and about other people.
“you start feeling good about yourself“
That explains your incessant self-hatred and hatred of everyone around you.
A common trait of the rabid leftist.
define “almost”.
Well, again, here is what she said:

“Prior to satellites, there are almost no records outside of the U.S. and Europe.”
And here is the map
YAWN. !!
Thanks for showing just a few dots in anywhere except USA, Eastern Australia, and Europe.
Seems you are agreeing with Linnea.. while trying to be a nick-wit.
Lol.
“Additionally, the idea that federal subsidized housing will help decrease housing prices in general is economically illiterate at best.”
Lots of homelessness now in Wokeachusetts for the following reasons:
If you want a “starter home” in the Boston area, be prepared to spend half a million bucks. By 2035, you’ll have to buy an EV. So, if you’re not one of those highly educated specialists, you simply can’t afford to live here. Yet, the governor continues to welcome people from 3rd world nations who can’t speak English and have little education. So the state now spends a billion/year to keep them alive.
Well at least with all the high-paid woke leftists paying state taxes…( I’m sure they don’t mind 😉 )
… Wokeachusetts can afford those billions 😉
But is it sustainable.. I doubt it.
How is a subsidized house going to help in a hurricane when an evacuation order is issued?
You give them a subsidized car to go with it.
If the car is an EV, the question remains.
What good is it? 😎
A PS In how many cities in the US did past subsided housing become known as “the projects”?
Highly crime ridden.