This is Dr. Curry, the most rational voice I have found on this subject, discussing climate change and weather in June: "There is very little in the way of extreme weather events that can convincingly be attributed to manmade global warming, even if you are assuming that all of the recent warming is manmade. Global warming activists will continue use extreme events as an argument against fossil fuels, even though there is little to no evidence to support this. Without this argument, there is very little left to worry about in the near term regarding AGW, apart from the slow creep of sea level rise."
Since you are familiar with her blog, I assume you know she believes the uncertainty of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is vastly understated. As in the conclusions of the blog post you cite:
The largest rates of warming that are often cited in impact assessment analyses (e.g. 4.5 or 5 oC) rely on climate models being driven by a borderline implausible concentration/emission scenarios (RCP8.5).
The IPCC AR5 (2013) likely range of warming at the end of the 21st century has a top-range value of 3.1 oC, if the RCP8.5-derived values are eliminated. Even the more moderate amount of warming of 3.1oC relies on climate models with values of the equilibrium climate sensitivity that are larger than can be defended based on analysis of historical climate change. Further, these rates of warming explicitly assume that the climate of the 21st century will be driven solely by anthropogenic changes to the atmospheric concentration, neglecting 21st century variations in the sun and solar indirect effects, volcanic eruptions, and multi-decadal to millennial scale ocean oscillations. Natural processes have the potential to counteract or amplify the impacts of any manmade warming.
Estimates of 21st century sea level rise exceeding 1 m require at least one borderline implausible or very weakly justified assumption. Allowing for one borderline implausible assumption in the sea level rise projection produces high-end estimates of sea level rise of 1.1 to 1.6 m. Higher estimates are produced using multiple borderline implausible or very weakly justified assumptions. The most extreme of the published worst-case scenarios require a cascade of events, each of which are extremely unlikely to borderline impossible based on our current knowledge base. However, given the substantial uncertainties and unknowns surrounding ice sheet dynamics, these scenarios should not be rejected as impossible.
And, yes, Dr. Curry is appalled at the damage done to science by alarmist disinformation and suppression of debate.
As for the difference between cause and contribute, there is a vast distinction there. If we are causing climate change, we can stop climate change. If we are contributing to climate change, it will continue no matter what we do, albeit perhaps a bit slower. Is slowing it down worth the cost? See question 3.
We are in fact in a loooong period of cooling, have been for about 3,000 years. Is the last 150 years the end of that trend or one of several multi-century warming interruptions? (Unknown) What caused the warming between 1850 and 1950, when the IPCC says there wasn't enough manmade CO2 in the air to be the cause? What caused nature to turn over warming to humans in 1950?