Very recently, two identical e-mails appeared in my inbox, each forwarded from different sources, both calling for “all airline passengers” to “help cool the overheated oil market and permit the economy to prosper” by the CEOs of no less than 12 different airlines. I learned the unwelcome news that these 12 men (alas, not a single woman among them, but any discussion about the implications of that must wait for another day) have now added their voices in a very public way to the choir at the new Church of Economic Salvation.

According to church gospel, it’s the devil’s work that brought us skyrocketing crude oil prices. (Well, if not the devil himself, then his henchmen in the form of evil oil speculators.) Therefore, we must raise our collective voices to cast their evil influences out of our oil markets so that all will be right with the world again — at least while we are filling our gas tanks, anyway.

Yet such dogma can exist only as an article of faith. For the available evidence not only fails to support, it actually undermines the argument that the five-plus-year surge we continue to witness in the price of oil is nothing more than the manifestation of an “oil bubble,” the blame for which (they further claim) lies squarely at the feet of “oil speculators.”

Oil speculators have no doubt played some part in bringing the world higher oil prices (but their role in this has been limited, at best; most economists believe that speculation can only have a persistent effect on commodity prices, oil included, if it leads to physical hoarding, no meaningful evidence of which currently exists). I find merit in the argument that our commodities and futures markets should be more tightly regulated. Even so, I am concerned that the angry mob forming inside the church, now fortified with its 12 newest members, has its sights unreasonably narrowly set on oil speculators.

Don’t get me wrong; being more often a critic than a defender of free market ideology, I don’t have much sympathy for “oil speculators.” So, why am I concerned? Because that noisy, shortsighted mob appears ready to take a menacing turn straight down the proverbial garden path, taking much of the public with it, drawing attention away from the real issues, and scarce resources from where those are most urgently needed right now: directed toward development and implementation of strategies and policies that seek to mitigate the impact of the most dominant force likely driving the surge in oil prices, a growing imbalance between an exploding global demand for energy-producing commodities against an increasingly scarce supply, as well as the economic, environmental, national security and quality-of-life implications that come with that.

Let’s address several other issues, most of which rank in influence way ahead of speculation in their respective capacity to affect the long-term price of oil before we turn our attention towards speculation — however one may define that — as a means to “cool the overheated oil market.” Among those, a weak U.S. dollar — off almost 30 percent against the euro within the last five years — resulting in: 1) a corresponding increase in the dollar-denominated cost of oil (simply put, we are shelling out about 30 percent more for crude oil now than we did five years ago, just to offset the dollar’s loss in relative value during that same period), and 2) hedge funds, pension funds and other institutional investors (concerned that the dollar will continue its decline) turning to the purchase of oil as a hedge against losses in the value of their dollar-denominated assets, which has disproportionately affected its price.

Regrettably, the competing narrative now being promoted by adherents to the gospel according to the Church of Economic Salvation appears to have enough traction to begin reshaping the debate and shifting public perception. The possible implications of that are worrisome. For if a significant share of the public comes to accept the more palatable notion that we are in the midst of an “oil bubble,” instead of taking the more realistic view that we are, in fact, witnessing a real market response to a growing imbalance between supply and demand, it will likely adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude toward, and thus, approach, to this problem that we can ill afford anymore. Moreover, should it give rise to an unrealistically inflated expectation that a significant fall back in the price of crude oil — to more “normal” levels — is inevitable (after all, market “bubbles,” by definition, must eventually “pop”), then too many will do too little to prepare for the worst because they are consumed with (what seems likely to be false) hope for the best.

(Gifford lives in Napa.)