This is not about your prior. This is about whether you are arguing fairly and interpreting the data impartially. You are not. You read the article, concluded

This is not about your prior. This is about whether you are arguing fairly and interpreting the data impartially. You are not. You read the article, concluded the author was wrong, and posted anecdotes and a link about wildfires. After it was pointed out that the author said nothing about wildfires, you suggested that wildfires are caused by droughts, while admitting that the rain is moving around. Why not admit that your point about wildfires was simply off the mark? After I pointed out that wildfires can be caused by other things than droughts, you asked for me to name them, while admitting elsewhere that the wildfire issue is complicated. Why not simply admit that obviously there are many causes of wildfires? After I pointed out that you misrepresented what the author said as "not causing any serious problems" then you switched to whether or not the evidence is scant. Why not just admit that you misstated the author's position? After admitting that "scant" means something more like "insufficient" rather than "nonexistent", you are now saying that to dispute the claim requires only that some evidence exists. Why not simply admit that the issue is more complicated than it seemed to you at first glance and that you may have jumped the gun? > But it is important to not to lose sight of what is actually in dispute here. Indeed. Note that I am not responding at all to the drought data you found. I am simply pointing out the unreasonable way you are arguing.