The problem is there is no real consensus on global warming. The pro-GW people pull out data from the last 1000 years which indeed shows a significant trend upwards. The anti-GW people pull out data from the last 2M years which shows that this is just a cycle.
The fact is that earth has been warmer and is currently still recovering from a very recent ice age (we're still at -3 degrees from the time humans initially came on the scene).
The fact is that we'll lose a bunch of real estate (even business centers like NYC) when the glaciers melt and a lot of animals will die, a thing that has been happening for millions of years in cycles of ~100k years - Earth is overdue by several thousand years for a meteor impact, Yellowstone erupting and a bunch of other 'life-ending' events. Life in itself probably won't end, apex predators (like humans and polar bears) will and no, we have no technological solution yet, regardless of our energy consumption.
The question is whether we should engineer the environment to support more and more people living in greater 'wealth' and comfort without changing anything about where or how we live? Should we try to artificially cool the earth to optimal conditions? Should we plan on rebuilding Wall Street somewhere else, build huge dams or just let it drown?
And what does the Paris accords have to do with it: absolutely nothing - they set the limit to 2 degrees above Pre-Industrial temperatures (we're currently somewhere between 0.5 and 1 degree depending on the study and measurements) and allow nations to buy out their carbon consumption instead of reduce it with the hopes that poorer nations would not buy carbon with the money but invest it in much more expensive renewables - we all know how that goes, you can spend $1 on heating 1 home or 3 homes, which will your government pick?