What you said is true, but the original commenter said that climate change burned down a town, not that this town burning down is proof that climate change is real. There’s a very big difference there.

I talk about both, the point particular to the specific instance of the town here:

"by definition it's about the change of the overall climate where more such events may occur than normal (but they don't come wrapped with a bow and a note saying "love: climate change"). This is another piece of evidence towards that aggregate but not uniquely identifiable as only being possible because of climate change."

There is no way to say climate change caused this particular town to burn down, just that climate change has caused more towns to burn down than average.

This is not what my comment said at all. Please don't twist my words like this.

Please don't make generalized dismissals, I can't be sure if I if misinterpreted, if you misinterpreted, or if we just disagree on a point - all I know is you feel misunderstood in some way.

What particularly is it you find yourself disagreeing with in my response?

No, you're mixing up necessary and sufficient. This being a definitive demonstration doesn't make it the only definitive reason to accept climate change - there was already plenty of good-enough evidence.

I don't think the problem is on the "evidence of climate change" side, I think there is plenty inclusive or exclusive of this single event. The issue with the claim "climate change literally just burnt down a town" is cities have and will burn downe pre/post climate change so even overwhelming evidence of climate change is not proof that climate change caused this particular city to burn.

I think when three people correct you, it is time to consider that one might not be correct.

It's the top response to a comment on an _extremely_ charged issue and has had at least a dozen direct engagements. 3 disagreements is a lot less than I expected to be honest, particularly when all 3 are about something different. I fully expected -5 karma and 5 comments saying the same <x> in the morning because I missed something obvious. Of the responses tshaddox probably had the best point that the comment focused a bit to much on talking general climate change points before it got to the meat of the response to the actual comment. jacquesm probably said what I was aiming to try to say best out of anything in the entire parent thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27704578 and he avoids my mistake right out of the gate.

Regardless "# of HN commentors disagreeing with you" probably isn't a good measure of not being correct or a good goal post to monitor. Best to assume it's exceedingly, exceptionally (impossibly?), rare you ever have the fully correct picture and you have keep the understanding you'll need to grow your view with new data as you discuss. Even if you have 50 straight responses that agree someone will agree but add something you hadn't considered.