absolutely agree about the dangers of trying to link one particular event, or one particular season's weather, to anthropogenic climate change. But you must surely accept the basic physics of the matter - Fourier and Tyndall worked out the essentials in the 19C and nobody, as far I know, has ever undermined the basic premise that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase the net amount of heat reaching the earth's surface. It is also indisputable that mankind's burning of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric CO2 to a level (400ppm) not seen on the planet for 3 million years, probably more. So given these two reasonably certain premises, it is not on the face of it unlikely that there will be effects on the climate system. Yes, of course there are natural climatic cycles driven by astronomic factors such as solar activity, and one-off effects resulting from volcanic activity etc etc, These are actually quite well understood because of the ice-core record, use of isotope climate proxies etc, but because we know there are natural cycles does not make it logical to assume that mankind's effects on the climate are not significant, can't add to, or even override, natural cycles. And , incidentally, scientists do not believe they are' beyond criticism' - the whole point of a scientific explanation for a phenomenon is that is only the best available explanation, but that the explanation ('model' whatever you want to call it ) is always provisional and open to revision. Scientists are never certain they are right (unlike some of the more vocal opponents of science).