Why? Both are just equating correlation with causation. Of course we know drunk driving increases deaths, but if that wasn’t obvious then you couldn’t say either of these statemens.
Climate change produces heat waves by definition. If we're going to take a heat wave as hard proof for climate change, then climate change is a valid theory by definition, and that's not exactly scientific.
> If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.
Wasn't trying to be snarky. And you're inverting my statements. I'm saying, precisely, that heat waves are not definitive evidence of climate change, the same way colder than average weather is not hard evidence against it.
The evidence in my analogy would be blood alcohol tests of the people who crashed, and the evidence in the case of climate change is the measured/calculating heat trapping ability of the atmosphere.
My point is, we have evidence enough that is is valid to say the former, and that is what differentiates it from the latter.
