You say, “scientists can (and did) generalize that eco systems will adapt at different rates, leading to new pest invasions in general – no scientist specifically predicted that the pine beetle would decimate forests from Colorado to British Columbia, for example (to my knowledge). There will be more surprises ahead.”

In most parts of the national forest system, it was prohibited to thin the damage caused by the pine beetles by court action. This non action therefore set up significant parts of the national forest ripe for wild fires of uncontrollable nature. These wild fires caused collateral damage to homes/people, businesses, caused future flood damage due to the lack of trees to hold the moisture and positively polluted the atmosphere. I only bring this up as an example of unforeseen adverse consequences to what some (those that prevented forest thinning) thought was a good thing. You never know. I personally believe that because of the law of unintended consequences that incrementalism is the best approach in handling climate challenges. Doom and gloom approaches turn people off and some of us remember past gloom and doom that never came about. Anyone remember in the 70s when scientists claimed a new ice age was approaching and the 80s would be the coldest on record?? What became of that. Regardless of how well the UN report is written one has to wonder whether the writers seek advantage for their countries over another. I do agree with your premise and the reports that we as humans can figure our way out of any challenge, I might disagree with others on the approach taken to that way out.