That carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas is widely known. Whether the human release of carbon dioxide is a significant factor in global warming is subject to a lot of serious scientific debate. We can implement serious reductions of carbon dioxide emissions at a very high cost. Whether those reductions would have any meaningful effect is debateable. According to one analysis I read last year, full implementation of the Kyoto Accords would lower the projected temperature increase by less than 0.5 degrees Celsius at a cost of trillions. If that projection is accurate (and I take it with a grain of salt just like all other climate projections), then we could better spend that money on adapting to the effects of climate change that's going to happen anyway.

It sounds to me that you're following the "we don't need facts, we have our agenda" line of reasoning on this topic. That's not at all scientific and borders on psuedoscience. True science requires time and effort - something the impatient just can't accept. No, they'd rather just do something rather than take the time to see what the proper thing to do is. Then, if as happens all too often, the hasty action proves the wrong thing to do, they jump in the other direction and demand immediate action doing something else.

In medicine, the guiding principle is "First, do no harm." I believe that applies to all aspects of science and public policy as well. Rushing in to take serious and very expensive action when we don't have a handle on the fundamental science can indeed do a lot of harm. That would be grossly foolish.