Okay? I'm glad we've clarified that issue. 
Not really, because it becomes increasingly more obvious that you've misinterpreted what the terms actually mean. Either that, or you are deliberately misstating the warnings of the report by cherry-picking of what you think supports your claims. But for now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume the first.
From Box Introduction 1
Risk and the Management of an Uncertain FutureRisk is often represented as the probability of occurrence of hazardous events or trends multiplied by the magnitude of the consequences if these events occur. Therefore, high risk can result not only from high probability outcomes but also from low probability outcomes with very severe consequences. This makes it important to assess the full range of possible outcomes, from low probability tail outcomes to very likely outcomes. For example, it is unlikely that global mean sea level will rise by more than one meter in this century, but the consequence of a greater rise could be so severe that this possibility becomes a significant part of risk assessment. Similarly, low confidence but high consequence outcomes are also policy relevant; for instance the possibility that the response of Amazon forest could substantially amplify climate change merits consideration despite our currently imperfect ability to project the outcome.
Box Introduction.2
Communicating the Degree of Certainty in Assessment FindingsThe IPCC Guidance Note on Uncertainty defines a common approach to evaluating and communicating the degree of certainty in findings of the assessment process. Each finding is grounded in an evaluation of underlying evidence and agreement. In many cases, a synthesis of evidence and agreement supports an assignment of confidence, especially for findings with stronger agreement and multiple independent lines of evidence. The degree of certainty in each key finding of the assessment is based on the type, amount, quality and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement. The summary terms for evidence are:
limited, medium or robust. For agreement, they are low, medium or high. Levels of confidence a include five qualifiers: very low, low, medium, high and very high, and are typeset in italics, e.g., medium confidence.
You seem to interpret those qualifiers as level of likelihood, but that's an entirely different metric. Low confidence may mean that the amount of data was limited or prediction models were inaccurate. The key data could still show a trend or have mixed numbers of observations over time.
For example, when looking at a global picture the supporting data for a given parameter may be inconclusive, but on a regional level, they may very obvious. Think e.g. increasing level of rainfall in parts of the Northern hemisphere, and increasing drought in equatorial regions. Globally these may somewhat level each other out, but regionally they are a cause of concern. Also, more historical data sets may have fewer observations (thus lower confidence), while more recent ones may be readily available (higher confidence). That would reduce the confidence level over the longer period.
Another example straight from the report:
Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979 (Figure 1.10). There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent due to the incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change and low confidence in estimates of natural internal variability in that region.
The more I read of the report, the more it looks like you are indeed cherry-picking, trolling. And by only focusing on extreme weather you make matters even worse.
For example:
There is low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial floods on a global scale. The strength of the evidence is limited mainly by a lack of long-term records from unmanaged catchments. Moreover, floods are strongly influenced by many human activities impacting catchments, making the attribution of detected changes to climate change difficult.
Do I need to go on? I'll emphasize the parts you conveniently left out of your quotes:
There is low confidence in observed global-scale trends in droughts, due to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the choice of the definition for drought, and due to geographical inconsistencies in drought trends. There is also low confidence in the attribution of changes in drought over global land areas since the mid-20th century, due to the same observational uncertainties and difficulties in distinguishing decadal scale variability in drought from long-term trends.
So were you selectively quoting, cherry picking, without full understanding(?) or deliberately?.
Need more?
Why not let us stick to the summaries at the beginning of the chapters?
1.1 Observed changes in the climate systemHuman influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.
1.2 Past and recent drivers of climate changeAnthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era driven largely by economic and population growth. From 2000 to 2010 emissions were the highest in history. Historical emissions have driven atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to levels that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years, leading to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
1.3 Attribution of climate changes and impactsThe evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since AR4. Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, and in global mean sea level rise; and it is extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid- 20th century. In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.
Conclusion:
Trump's proposals to ignore climate change suck big time.
Cheers,
Bart
