Some thoughts from JC on the recent IPCC report
IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events | Climate Etc.
Her conclusion statement reads
This report is better than I expected, although I suspect that some of their conclusions are based on weak arguments (we will have to wait for the full report). The two most important aspects IMO are the recognition of the importance of natural variability and also vulnerability. The dominance of natural variability for the past 40-60 years in determining extreme events makes the AGW extreme events attribution exercises (see here) seem even more pointless. The weakest part of the report is the high confidence level of the future projections (including one “virtually certain.”) I suspect that different authors worked on the “Observations” section than those working on the “Future” chapter; too bad the “Future” authors didn’t read the “Observations” section first.
DutchRoll
"Scientists have been saying for decades that climate impacts are going to occur over a long period of time and they've discussed natural variability within these changes at great lengths."
Sorry, but very rarely if at all have I seen natural variability mentioned for the benefit of the "end user" of MSM consumption. Wonder what the reason for that might be?
"As knowledge and data increases, those predictions will change slightly, but the ultimate result of adding greenhouse gas to a planetary atmosphere at a rate much higher than natural forces can scrub it out will not change, unless freaky new physical processes are discovered."
Which might manifest themselves in something like a decade-long hiatus in LST, SST and oceanic heat content? The 80s/90s were supposedly an observation-based validation of "trust the models" and "it`s obviously related to CO2 emissions". Now we are pumping ever more "carbon" into the `sphere but there has been a lull - oops, let`s now publically invoke natural variability here. Or was that aerosols, geez, which one do we go for? Hell, let`s use both...
Pray to your god that we do not get a Younger Dryas type of natural variability sometime soon!
Strangely enough we have had a recently much-trumpeted "10 years is not enough for a trend, it must be at least 17 years" from Santer.
Which will no doubt be amended to 19 years circa 2013...
"In just a few years, snow will be a rare and exciting event". 
Honest. It is in the models...
Gobbledock
As you say, it is the futility of unilateral action that is biggest cringe factor here. China`s emissions growing every year at a rate approximating total Oz annual emissions...we aim to reduce our rate of increase, NOT to physically reduce the current amount, actually...at what overall financial impost to the nation?...but never mind such pesky considerations. 
No wonder people start jumping onto conspiracy theory bandwagons, with this sort of BS going on. But as I keep saying, that is something I personally consider to be...ahem..."less than likely"... 
A gravy-train confluence of interests which has evolved into a Too Big To Fail construct does just fine as an explanation.