To me this is the great utility of the IPCC reports. If you look at the full report you can find subsections on many aspects of climate change and a discussion of the state of the field complete with citations compiled by an expert.
First and foremost: read.
Second: don't demand certitude and table the idea that there's a universal judgement. Think: am I asking for an up/down vote on a conversation, or on an assertion?
Uncertainty can't always be driven down to 0. People usually expect this from other fields and yet understand when it is silly in their own field. (imagine: climate scientist forum noting cosmic rays, asking how any system can possibly be secure given memory safety causes security issues, and cosmic rays can flip memory bits, then hand-wringing about how they can even figure out what software research to trust)
This thread is itself a good example: OP has no issue with the research, or type of research, or anything, just is concerned how laypeople might believe it is certain and confirmed because it is in Nature. The paper itself makes no such claim, as the OP goes to great lengths to explain (c.f. it is statistical model)
For me, this summary is a lot different than the way I see this aspect talked about in the media (and on Twitter, etc) even by climate scientists.
Okay? A lot of the discourse is explicitly about the heat and cold.
It wasn’t all that long ago that interviewed climate scientists would say that you couldn’t attribute individual events to climate change. Now they constantly do. I feel like I hear it every other time I tune in to NPR.
"constantly"? It's ironic that you put these two statements together like they somehow prove your point, while you're actually undermining your own position. Here's what the climate scientists have been saying: "you can't attribute individual weather events directly to climate change. However, climate change will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events occurring".
So, if the media (note, not scientists) is "constantly" talking about extreme weather events, that does seem to prove that extreme weather events are happening more often, right? Which kinda confirms what the scientists were predicting all along? It's not the individual events that prove climate change: it is the pattern of "constant" extreme weather events.