"Even though neither the science nor politics of climate change is fully established yet..."
Have you read the IPCC papers? The science is actually quite firmly established.
There's a pseudo-scientific adjunct to the politics that is firmly established. The real science is unclear, has no good models, and no solid evidence, and anyone who attempts to improve that situation is labelled a "denialist" and denigrated by political "scientists" who believe their current theories are already perfect.
It's clear that climate change is taking place, as it has done throughout the planet's life. We may be nearing the end of the current ice age, or the end of the current interglacial (another glacial period would be as unwelcome as an end to the ice age); ice ages have ended several times before and on none of those occasions was their ending cause by man made global warming, interglacials have ended before, many times more often that have ice ages, and none of those were caused by man made effects on the climate either.
We ought to be studying this stuff, trying to improve the models, taking out some of the more bizarre counter-factual assumptions built into some of the models, avoiding cherry picking and manipulation of data (and disowning it clearly and strongly when it does happen, even if it was done to support a theory that we favour), not claiming that the science is already solid and trying to stifle all attempts to do real science by flinging about this stupid "denialist" tag.
And we ought to be taking sensible precautionary measures - reasonable measures, not half-baked political nonsense like "carbon trading" - because if we are heading towards the end of the current ice age, whether or not MMGW is a significant factor pushing us towards that end, we need to do what we reasonably can in order to delay us getting there because at our current technology level ending the ice age would be fairly catastrophic (in human terms; it wouldn't much bother most of the biomass on the planet).
--edit (belatedly) fix quote tag