Rob
You may be correct in stating that few US voters can “communicate quickly and correctly why the ‘consensus’ …position is flawed”
Many might simply state “uncertainty”, referring to both the magnitude and (of more importance to the average voter) the impact of the GH effect.
This recent BBC article points to this “uncertainty”.
Mixed messages on climate ‘vulnerability’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183
But when you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.
There is “low confidence” that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, “limited-to-medium evidence available” to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and “low confidence” on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.
In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.
While it is “likely” that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only “medium confidence” that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and “low confidence” in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.
Max