Traffic deaths would rise because people would increasingly drive under the influence.
In this situation you could say: "This crazy unusual number of traffic deaths near this bar is obviously the result of drunk driving."
In this situation you could not say: "My town had the lowest number of traffic deaths ever recorded last year, so alcohol has not increased accident rates."
And we know that climate change causes more drastic heat waves. If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.
> If that weren't the case, you'd be correct, but alas.
Why so snarky?
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.
That’s valid, wasn’t clear to me from the example in your initial post.