You're probably just trolling, but you're currently modded +3, so I'm going to reply.
Such as the US just had one of the 10 coldest years on record.
Minima and maxima are by definition outliers. While there is an entire body of statistical literature on outliers, they're not used to determine trends or draw conclusions, because they are essentially (bad) luck.
The UK getting record snowfall despite AGWers claiming the UK wouldn't see snow after 2008.
Sources please. Because no serious scientist would ever make such a definite statement. A mathematician might, but science, including climate science, is all about statistics and probabilities. In any field. Perhaps you mean this article in the Independent? The scientist quoted says that in 20 years time, snowfall will become a rare and exciting event. So I think that we can consider him proven wrong if it snows in southern England for say, five out of ten years from 2020 onwards?
Antarctica getting within .5 degrees of the coldest recorded temperature on earth.
Antarctica is a huge and largely unexplored continent. Finding a new minimum in a situation where very little information was available is hardly suprising, and certainly shouldn't be used to draw any conclusions.
Along with 2000 record low temperatures recorded over the last couple of months.
Among how many measurements? Record since when? And see above about outliers.
Add that to the IPCC report showing no warming for 17 years.
Indeed. They also investigated why, but you're conveniently leaving that out since it doesn't fit your agenda. I'll give you a hand as to the causes according to the IPCC: an exceptionally quiet sun (there's another of those outliers), several smaller volcanic eruptions increasing the amount of dust in the upper atmosphere, and an increase in dust in the lower atmosphere, probably due to industrial pollution. According to the IPCC, the discrepancy is partially explained by these three causes (which weren't put into the models when the prediction was made), and the remaining difference is small enough to fit within the natural variation (stochasticity) of the models, or be attributed to errors in the models.
Its become pretty obvious which side has been lying. Now they are grasping at straws to report ANYTHING that shows their side "might" be right.
Sorry, this is not the 18th century anymore. Science is a quantitative affair, and necessarily so, because our world isn't binary. The question is not whether there is human-induced climate change, the question is how strong an effect humans are having on the biosphere. Maybe it's small enough to be negligible (probably not, according to what we currently know), maybe it's huge and a danger, but it's a quantitative question.
I'm going to ignore the alarmists and look at the evidence myself. If AGW was real, they wouldn't have to lie as often and at least ONE of their predictions would have happened.
Excellent idea. Try reading the IPCC report instead of The Drudge Report and you might find some.