The discussion on Real Climate about this (both the blog article by Gavin Schmidt and the comments (a few written by some obviously well-informed folks)).
This is giving me an idea for an essay for the class project - examining the idea of changes in the weather (or extreme events) and how using that as evidence for AGW can be problematic. This encompasses the concepts of event attribution, climate variability, public perception and communication. How does one effectively communicate the idea that certain events are more probable? How do people's natural biases (Availability heuristic/conjunction fallacy, base-rate neglect, recency bias)(note: yes, these are from a list of biases on wikipedia! I know, I know, but I'm throwing out ideas here, bear with me) affect their perception of AGW? Is it dangerous to link weather and climate change, because of the fickleness of weather and people's hostility toward the idea of climate change (i.e., one negative example of a cool summer day means more than a lot of positive examples)?
And there are studies on attitudes of weather and climate change - here's one from ametsoc.
If anyone would be interested in exploring this, let me know.