The problem is he's trying to make a fairly subtle point about a topic that tends to cause kneejerk reactions. Climate change is happening, he's not contesting

The problem is he's trying to make a fairly subtle point about a topic that tends to cause kneejerk reactions. Climate change is happening, he's not contesting that. This particular event might seem like it's related to climate change, but it's probably not (in his view. I have no idea whether that's true or not). This distinction is crucially important, for a few reasons. First off, it's a matter of intelectual honesty and integrity. If you want to use science as an argument when it suits you, you have to accept it when it doesn't. Second, it's bad rhetorics. If you argue today that climate change is causing this event, and somebody comes and says next week that you're wrong, that weakens your overall position. You become the proverbial boy who cried wolf, in an arena where accusations of crying wolf are already rampant, and where feeding those accusations is the last thing you want to do. Third, it recontextualises the problem. If this is a naturally-occurring extreme weather event rather than the result of anthropogenic climate change, then we need to talk about how those two effects compound with each other. Or, as the article says, "If electrical grids fail and people die this week, that will mean that we are not even prepared for the present".