They need to be as close to the equator (so in North America, as far south) as possible to get the most centrifugal boost from the Earth (use the least fuel) possible.
Perhaps NASA isn't taking it seriously enough wrt facility placement, but they're hardly alone in that. And lots of people are making huge investments, eg, the city of Venice is building sea walls that they haven't previously needed, despite always having been on the coast.
Global Warming was confusing because, while global average temperatures are rising, the effect locally can be unintuitive, eg, destabilizing the polar vortex had resulted in harsher winters in the northern US.
Science communication is hard and it turns out people are pretty bad at it. I'd agree that doesn't help matters. But climate change is indeed real and a huge problem.
Couldn't the launch facilities be constructed near the coast, but at higher altitude, say on top of cliffs of 50m or so?
The ideal launch site:
1) As close to the equator as possible.
2) Has open water to the *east* of the launch site. (Wasteland is also acceptable, that's what Russia does. They also care less if they drop it on somebody's head. China doesn't seem to care--we've seen them drop a rocket on a village.)
3) Has a huge amount of open space around it in case the rocket goes boom on the pad.
California fails the east requirement, it's used for polar launches (where you want water to either the north or south) but you can't insert into a normal equatorial orbit from there.
Hawaii fails the space requirement. Not to mention all the logistics hassles it would cause. Thus Florida it is and assume the infrastructure will in time be lost.
Some places will cool, but not cool as much as cold places will warm and other warm places will warm