There is a post here at the Daily Dish, which links to an article here at The New Yorker. I just had to email The Daily Dish, because they don't do comments.

The article referenced is filled with disjointed arguments.

"The very frequency with which this question is being asked these days
should make people take notice,"

No, these are tactics used by pundits on the Fox network. Should we
really stoop so low?

"How about posing the question this way: Are more events like Irene
what you would expect in a warming world? Here the answer is a
straightforward “yes.”

The author's asserts an expectation, then qualifies it with 'warnings'
that experts have put forth if some of the situations that have been
theorized come to pass. Most of the dangers are "very likely", but of
course none of these dangers can conclusively be attributed to rising
temperatures, which themselves can't be conclusively attributed to
anthropological sources, simply because the data set is so vast.
Then, after stating all this, situations that might happen because
global warming might truly be a worldwide phenomenon, they can be
lumped together and assertions can be made "with a great deal of
confidence" that more events like Irene (which is really just average
as hurricanes go) will be forthcoming. All of this "squishy"
reasoning leads to, in the author's mind, the conclusion that we
should acknowledge the truth.

This woo belongs at the Huffington Post, not in the New Yorker, and is
not worthy of the Dish.