Its not one or the other, that's overly simplistic. Using this one data point to "prove" climate change is about as honest as someone bringing a snowball into congress to prove it's fake.
You need both to prove a sustainable point, otherwise it's forgotten with the next cold snap. This is one extreme data point, and it helps to showcase the problem, but it is not the only one. Use it as part of a whole, not as a singular showcase.
Thats my interpretation of OPs comment.