The recent surge of climate change in the media has not really interested me. Basically, I am a bit skeptical that the political interest will last long enough to really make the necessary changes, but deep down I do have some hope.
One of the big problems is getting the information to the public. I think there is a need for information between the high level one page news reports that don't provide any real science and the detailed scientific studies that most people can't and/or don't want to read.
Second, there is usually so much bias in reviews from both sides of the debate that the major facts get missed by the public. Instead, people are inundated with threats of massive storms and flooding or threats of economy collapse. Some people don't want the two major oppositions they just want some basic facts. I think this is similar to the Evolution vs Creationism debate and is one of the best points coming out of Francis Collins' book the Language of God.
A nice example of balancing the level of science and the point of views was published yesterday in the New Scientist. The article provides a "round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions" and does so with a true effort in maintaining scientific clarity and an unbiased opinion.