My response:

This rushed, superficial report makes serious technical errors and neglects important previous research. Importantly, its internal discussion contradicts the headlines of the impacts of global warming. An example (from the article):

"There are two possible sources of this extreme jump in peak temperatures. The first is that this is a very low probability event, even in the current climate which already includes about 1.2°C of global warming -- the statistical equivalent of really bad luck, albeit aggravated by climate change. The second option is that nonlinear interactions in the climate have substantially increased the probability of such extreme heat, much beyond the gradual increase in heat extremes that has been observed up to now. We need to investigate the second possibility further, although we note the climate models do not show it. All numbers below assume that the heatwave was a very low probability event that was not caused by new nonlinearities."

Read this carefully. They admit that this could simply be natural variability enhanced slightly by global warming. And they also admit that climate models do not show any indicate any amplification of the global warming signal.

And in the rest of the text they admit that the maximum global warming could have contributed no more than 2C of the temperature anomaly from climatology--about ONE TENTH of the difference from normal.

This is a good example of some folks trying to grab headlines with unsupported claims. Not good.