The problem is that the general agreement seems to be more of a movement to reinforce the notion of the arrogance of mankind itself which has a poor record of living up to its boasts.
Every week now there is a small blurb published infrequently but published nonetheless that argues against the stated relentlessness of the warming trend, cooling oceans; temperature errors having to be corrected; glaciers growing; multiplying numbers of true climate-related scientists signing on to the denier list; strong ice-pack in the Arctic; continued Pacific storms due to cold offshore water in the northwest; an oscillation bring colder water along the Alaskan coast with a likely persistence; and virtually no sunspots.
All this serves little to reinforce the notion of continued warming on anywhere near the scale of that predicted by the models from the last few decades.
This is a time of moderation not ramped-up so-called “fixes.”
There's a very interesting interpretive filter at work.
You hear "cooling oceans"; I hear "shifts in the well-known ocean oscillations".
You hear "temperature errors having to be corrected"; I hear "standard quality control procedures which have only minor effects on the full record".
You hear "glaciers growing"; I hear "standard skeptical rejoinder pointing out that 10% of glaciers globally are advancing, trying to counter the receding trend of the other 90%".
You hear: "multiplying number of true climate-related scientists signing onto the denier list"; I hear "all the same names over and over again, and nobody of significance actually switching sides".
You hear "strong ice-pack in the Arctic"; I hear "all first-year ice during a slightly cooler winter" (and believe me, this one is going to be REAL interesting this August and September)
You hear "continued Pacific storms due to cold offshore water in the NW"; I hear "PDO". (Same for the next one.)
You hear "virtually no sunspots". I hear "it takes a lot more than a slow start to the next cycle to make a Maunder Minimum".
All this serves little to reinforce the notion of continued warming on anywhere near the scale of that predicted by the models from the last few decades.
And I say that it's way too soon to make that statement during a year when La Nina is a significant factor, the PDO shifted, and it's not even summer in the NH yet. This is clearly a pronounced example of year-to-year variability; it takes far more time to determine if a new normal has been established.
However, politics and public opinion move fast, and politicians and media mavens don't have the patience required of the scientific community. So I'm not surprised that there is considerable exploit of this year-to-year variability.
This is a time of moderation not ramped-up so-called “fixes.”
It is rare than anything done hastily is actually done well. I think that rather than base the nation's (and world's) energy adaptations on the state of the global climate, it just makes sense for several reasons (economic, security) to adopt more diversified sources. Many of these have less emissions impact than fossil fuels. And that will accrue an added benefit for the environment. I think economics is pushing the world down that road anyway.