Khar Khar:
In the case of this article, we must keep in mind that in both cases the author was particularly nebulous in giving us the source of the article and the names of the scientists. There is no evidence that this environmental group in Canada said the fault lied in the hands of AGW, just that some scientists elsewhere have, which is true. All this group did was report trends in the weather of Canada for 2010. I would have liked to have read this article for myself, since the way this journalist wrote this implied something which may or may not be true.
I don't think you can contribute any single event to AGW. An analogy would be: we know that if you smoke, your more likely to get lung cancer, but we don't know which cigarette actually caused cancer in a given smoker.
$1:
In particular, andyt, I have to admit that I feel your complaints about prognostication in the field of economics should at least carry over to the field of climate science as well. Both involve numerous variables making numbers hard to track. In some institutions, EAS is considered closer to the social sciences than the physical sciences due to similar difficulties in both fields to getting adequate results.
Meteorologists are good at predicting some things. They usually know when a hurricane is brewing. Forecasts are pretty good up to three days. They can predict aggregate temperatures, precipitation and such fairly well. But the general circulation systems (GCMs) have a long way to go. The global weather is incredibly complex. It's also chaotic, putting theoretical limits on the ability to model it. They don't have a great handle on cloud formation and understanding of ocean currents is lacking.
CKA Moderator 
