The unfortunate thing happens when incomplete science is used for political posturing and policy.

There certainly does seem to be a lot of political posturing going on, but I don't think it is coming from the scientists.

Although I never said that it was, I would at the same time caution against making broad sweeping statements.

Economics is a bit different. When you make economic decisions based on questionable data, people suffer.

I've never understood this argument in the context of AGW. It sounds like saying, "What if we clean up the air and breathe easier for no good reason?"

And I, in turn, have never understood the argument you mention. Regulations have effects, both malevolent and benign. When regulations are enforced, someone wins, someone else loses. If we "clean up the air and breathe easier" as you put, it but millions of people end up in poverty (or worse), is that a net win?

We would unquestionably have cleaner air if we shut down all coal-fired generating plants and banned the internal combustion engine tomorrow. There are excellent reasons to do just that, environmentally speaking. But does it sound like a good idea to you? If so, then you may need to think things through a little farther, I believe.

If you don't make a decision, people might suffer, too.

A great deal of suffering can arise from this line of reasoning.