Myles Allen has an interesting piece up in the Guardian, putting Al Gore right on what climate models really tell us (theoretically) about extreme weather.
The claim that we are "painting more dots on the dice", causing weather events that simply could not have occurred in the absence of human influence on climate, is just plain wrong. Given the paucity of reliable records and bias in climate models, it is quite impossible to say whether an observed event could have happened in a hypothetical pristine climate. Our research focuses on quantifying how risks have changed, which is a much easier proposition, although addressing all the uncertainties still makes working out these "relative risks" a painstaking affair.
He also has some interesting things to say about policy:
Enthusiasm for doing anything about climate change seems to have given way to resignation that we will simply have to adapt. For the foreseeable future, this overwhelmingly means dealing with harmful weather events that have been made more likely by human influence on climate. What we can't say right now is which these events are, and therefore who is being harmed and how much.
If mitigation efforts have indeed stopped, that's good. There are still the subsidies we give to renewables, of course, but I think most people would agree that these are meaningless gestures rather than mitigation.