I'm of the variety that believes a better way to judge climate changes is to observe secondary effects, rather than the weather. Weather is just weather. And climate change doesn't = extreme weather, it could just as easily mean more mundane weather.
Example: Are glaciers growing or shrinking? What were they doing in the decades and centuries prior? (Not eons). If we have a hypothesis that Co2 levels increasing by 33% over 80 years result in either a warmer or wetter climate, how are plants and animals responding? Have hardiness zones changed? Is there desertification or greening?
A good reason to observe this way is that Co2 cannot, and should not be taken for granted as the sole cause of anthropogenic climate change. In the same 100 years we've changed a significant amount of North America's surface area to asphalt. Nearly all of the prairies have been replaced with wheat and corn. The surface of the high plains are now soaked in water from aquifers. Air traffic has filled the upper atmosphere with excess water vapor which also traps and reflects long wave radiation. All of these things contribute in some way to the total equation.
Also, if we could go back 50 years and start spinning up thorium reactors, that would be great. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay a government to fix a mistake it made by shutting down the most efficient energy production system in existence still today. that could have offset nearly half of our Co2 output and lead to electric vehicles 20 years soon.
It turns out that the Earth's climate is cyclical !!!! 
