From the OP
We are currently at the lowest temperature ever.
Was the opening (clearly incorrect) statement intended to be provocative? It provoked me to respond I suppose.
I only occasionally post here (long enough that my profile appears to have disappeared) but climate change is of high significance - more than 3 decades of consistent top level science based advice has been saying we have a global problem of great import and we are currently experiencing global temperatures in line with predictions within that advice - ie post industrialisation record highs accompanying record high CO2 levels. Yet somehow taking the IPCC advice at face value, like it is
true is unreasonable.
Emphatically NOT the lowest temperatures ever given the Holocene followed a glacial maxima. Rather, the past 10,000 years or so was both
warmer than most of the period homo sapiens have been around and
unusually - exceptionally - stable as well, staying within a couple of degrees, after more than 100,000 years of being both colder and with much wider temperature variability. There are good grounds to think that Holocene climate
stability was important to the success of agriculture and therefore civilisation; it does appear that even the relatively small variations experienced within the holocence could take down civilisations.
Perhaps the real significance of this long paleo climate view to "global warming" aka anthropogenic climate ( that shows both wide variations in global temperatures and much warmer periods in the deep past), is that climate is highly susceptible to wide ranging change and there is a lot of potential to get a lot hotter. That is, it is a legitimate cause of serious concern rather than cause to think that current climate change is not that significant. I do tend to view how it will affect people alive now, for whom there are duties of care, within their lifetimes - a hundred years out - as a useful perspective. And see how climate has changed relative to that Holocene stability as more important than how warm it is relative to any deep past climate when homo sapiens wasn't around.
I note that the linked article puts a sensitivity to CO2 (for doubling concentrations) at ~8C - ie much higher than most current estimates -
"There is a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations and GMST, identifying CO2 as the dominant control on variations in Phanerozoic global climate and suggesting an apparent Earth system sensitivity of ~8°C."
As for how well the problem has (hasn't) been addressed, that is clearly not down to climate scientists or inconsistent climate science. Commerce and industry mostly opposed (and largely still opposes) strong climate policies and politicians and mainstream political parties have done their best to do the
least possible, to defer and delay, for the sake of economies and businesses that have become highly dependent on fossil fuels. My own view is that, like elected representatives being informed that (say) a major bridge or dam is unsafe, there is a
duty of care to respond adequately and they are letting us down by dismissing and ignoring the expert advice.
Yes, I can change my behavior and to some extent have, but I see the solutions as economy wide change to how energy is made, so that the energy offered to end consumers is low emissions, not leave it up to end consumers to care enough. We don't leave it up to people to do the right thing and not steal - we have laws and we try and enforce them, because even knowing better people do the wrong thing. When all our primary energy is low emissions then even extravagant wastefulness by people who don't care can be low emissions. Until our primary energy is low emissions I can "go stone age" and cease being a functional member of society, and rather than be held in high regard for my principles, will be mocked for it. The solution isn't going without stuff, it is a transition to zero emissions energy abundance.
But Wind and Solar has gotten a lot cheaper, crossing cost thresholds that count within the past decade, to become the most built new electricity options globally. In the US I believe more than 90% of new build electricity for 2024 was renewables. Here in Australia around 40% of electricity is (already) coming from RE and virtually no new fossil fuel plants are being built, irrespective of political support for it. Mostly though, Australia is mining coal and gas and selling it without regard to global climate consequences. Having come off such a low start - and with so much pessimism about it - that growth of RE is remarkable.
I don't think we can look at rates of installed capacity compared to fossil fuels and get a full appreciation of how rapidly things are changing; look to investments in solar and battery factories and growth of production capacity. We are heading towards 1 TW per year of solar panel production - at a 20% capacity factor, like 200 1GW nuclear plants. The effects of that may not be obvious yet, but it will be - and I am not convinced government decree can turn that tide back; these technologies have never been cheaper and market forces, not climate concerns are why Solar PV growth rates exceed fossil fuel electricity growth rates.
But climate concerns did have a role in clean funding clean energy R&D that made it possible, if only as empty gesture politics (and maybe giving of enough rope); Environmentalists weren't so much especially prescient as scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs saw real potential and have done a lot of hard work and made them work.
)
or 
) one could use, not that I am good with them.
