The stats doc says that there were indeed tourism losses, but they were local and off set. How does that contradict the IPCC?

Because both in the given context, and in the normal, common-sense interpretation of this sentence, wildfires in … British Columbia (2003) caused tens of millions of dollars in tourism losses … clearly means ”overall” losses.

That a nett gain may also include some losses is not relevant in the context. (Nor, indeed, in very many other contexts.) And if you told your friends and family that you had gained from your “investments” at the racetrack, when you had won a couple of hundred on one race but lost thousands on other races, they would conclude that not only were you a self-delusional gambling addict, but that your disease had lead you into lying to others, too.

The fact is, any normal person reading that sentence would conclude that due to climate change, BC tourism was tanking. That impression, as we have seen, would be quite false. The fact that a non-false interpretation can be defended by an unusually expansive interpretation of key words is nothing but sophistry.

nice info..thank you