By framing your arguments in political terms, you're spouting dogma rather than science. The scientific process can't be rushed to meet a political agenda, no matter how seductive. Sound science requires a lot of effort and supporting evidence. Political dogma just requires a strong set of lungs to keep shouting louder and louder. Until a model, any model, is validated, it's just a hypothesis that runs on a computer.

The question isn't whether the climate is changing because it is always changing. The question is whether human activities are responsible for the changing that we're seeing. Without a sound fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change as it has occurred in the past, all the climate models in the world are little more than SWAGs (Scientific [or Stupid] Wild Ass Guesses).

The next step is to determine what the environmental and economic impacts of chimate change will be. Then, if we decide there is something that we can do about it, we have to perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the costs of the proposed intervention are worth the cost. Not everything is worth doing.

There's also the possibility, perhaps remote, that the intervention can be worse than the warming. Without understanding the fundamental processes of climate change, it is possible that the change could well make things worse.

By way of analogy, you're sick and you go to the doctor. The doctor doesn't know what's wrong with you but decides to start prescribing medications on hunches to see if that will make you better. Odds are, not only won't your condition improve but the side effects from the medicines could make you worse off than before.