When someone like David Suzuki says he's doubtful recent bizarro weather is linked solely to carbon emissions, you sit up and listen.
Well, you didn't quote Suzuki, you quoted some editorial writer. And one ignorant of Science, in my opinion.
No, the recent floods and extreme events do not "prove" global warming.
But they don't have to, because we've already measured "global warming" and we know for a fact it is happening. And we also know that an inevitable outcome of that warming is an increase in extreme weather events, both hot ones and cold ones.
So while the recent extreme events aren't proof on their own, or even in isolation particularly strong evidence for that matter, they are on the other hand perfectly consistent with global warming. And we can expect their occurances to multiply as the warming continues.
I'm not happy with the term "global warming" myself because the globe of the earth is 8000 miles in diameter and most of it is not warming. Just the surface bits where you and I and all life happens to be. Go down a few dozen miles and you will observe no recent warming. Measure the oceans and the air and you will find it unambiguously. So I prefer, for want of a better term, "biosphere warming". Too bad that's where you and I happen to live.
As for the idea that all we have to do is build stronger dams and seawalls and manage runoff better and stuff like that and not worry about the CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, that is just innumeracy. We know enough to be able to conclude that the only way to economically deal with the problem is to stop dumping all that carbon into the atmosphere. Mitigation by any other method will be far, far more costly.
Not that we shouldn't be doing both.