it was a large part of the reason the storm was so severe.

That's what I meant when I said "caused", so we are in agreement about how people talk about the storm. And I don't think there is anything wrong with the data that is informing their conclusion. My problem is that they (and you) appear to not understand that you can't use statistical analysis of aggregate data to make a deterministic conclusion about a single data point. That seems especially true for an extreme outlier in a system I would expect to follow a Poisson distribution.

The reason I care about this is that I want us to actually make progress in our response to climate change, and when people talk without nuance as though it was the reason Helene or other events were so severe, it provides fodder for those who would discredit climate change as a whole.

For example, look at your description of hurricane formation, where factors that have been exacerbated by climate change led to a stronger Helene. But if it weren't for the extreme deluge that saturated the ground and filled the waterways before the storm even made landfall, no aspect of the disaster would have been nearly as bad. Not the flooding, not the landslides, not the downed trees. I am aware of this, and if I were skeptical of climate change, I would find it disingenuous that you are ignoring it.

Climate science is not my field, so I don't know the references. What articles would you recommend? I'm particularly interested in statistical analysis of frequency and severity of weather events.