Severe is not the same as extreme and one location is not universal. The Atlantic has been quiet this year as regards to hurricanes, the midwest as far as tornadoes. But for Boston to have multiple times more snow than Alaska? For there be such a strong east west delineation between hot and dry and cold and snowy? For the Arctic to be inundated with multiple simultaneous cyclones over a lengthy period of time? For South America to have such a reversal of weather conditions from normal expectations?
The article is right about severity, but the message is totally wrong when you add in the extreme factor. This is the problem of how you present your message. This is also the problem of climatologist trying to convey what is to come. A person can understand a jump from a category 2 to a category 4 hurricane. Where questions start coming about reliability is that the experts can not tell you with any confidence is if, where and when, any specific type of weather events will occur.
I am in no way a denialist, but for the day to day person on the street, all they want to know is what are things going to be like where I live 30 years from now and if what I am doing today will make any difference? Washing hands means less sickness (that is if I can get any clean water in the first place). Paying for schools means my kids get an education, paying for health care means I have access to a doctor, paying for police means I am protected from the bad guys. By the way paying for roof solar cells may or may not pay off financially in the long run and unless the majority do the same thing really will not make a difference in the outcomes, then add to that the question of understanding what the outcomes are actually going to be, that is when the message gets really muddy. It is for that reason I believe the only reliable long term action must come from government, because then the man on the street has no choice. The problem is that big money right now owns the government.