By Stuart Shapiro

Last week as Texas recovered from Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma was barreling down on Florida, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said, "Now isn't the time to talk about climate change."

With these storms in the recent past and Hurricane Jose bearing down on the Jersey Shore and Maria right behind it, climate change should be on everyone's tongues.

Of course, Pruitt doesn't want the public discussing climate change at the very time when such a discussion could lead to increased support for combatting it. He would prefer to have the discussion during a snowstorm (when his fellow Oklahoman, Sen. James Inhofe famously brought a snowball to the U.S. Senate to support his position that climate change was not happening).

Pruitt has implied that discussions about climate change are "political."

They are.

But no more so than arguments that we need to change immigration policies when a single immigrant commits a heinous crime. And, no more so than arguments that the war on terror needs to be ramped up after a single attack. Scientists and advocates of climate change policy need to learn from advocates of restricted immigration and anti-terror policies. The scientists have a much stronger case to make.

Unfortunately, scientists have generally done the exact opposite. They have made it all too easy for climate deniers like Pruitt and Inhofe. Whenever there is a big storm like Harvey, Irma, Jose or Maria, scientists correctly point out that individual weather events cannot be attributed to a global phenomenon like climate change.

While this is true in an absolute sense, these comments have the effect of giving climate deniers ammunition in their anti-science crusade.

Politicians and the public that they represent do not think in statistical terms. While climate change did not cause Harvey or Maria, it has made storms of this magnitude more likely and more deadly. For example, warmer air retains more water vapor, which increases the amount of water dumped during these storms.

In my work, talking with scientists, economists, and other people who influence public decisions, these individuals have told me that communicating the uncertain effects of policy to politicians is one of the hardest aspects of their jobs. It is easy to tell someone that A causes B. Life is rarely that simple though. It is much harder to tell them that money must be spent on A because doing so will make B somewhat less likely.

But events like the tragic hurricanes that we have seen over the past few weeks are the ideal time to make such a case. Instead of modestly retreating to the barest of facts, scientists and other supporters of policy measures to combat climate change should talk about how Harvey and Irma are examples of the peril of ignoring statistics (and science).

Individual hurricanes like Harvey, Irma and Jose are now more likely than they once were.

They will become even more likely in the future as the planet warms. So will storms that will make Harvey, Irma, Jose seem quaint. Sure, there will be years without such storms, just as there will be cool summer days. But these things will become less common with each passing year. Especially if we do nothing about climate change.

Stuart Shapiro is a professor at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. He is the author of "Analysis and Public Policy: Successes, Failures and Directions for Reform" (New Horizons in Public Policy series).

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.