I am so tired of hearing that global warming or climate change is "established" or "proven" science.
Even the most fundamental or basic theories or laws in science are subject to further refinement and even complete change. This has gone on for centuries, for as long as there has been science and it does continue even to this day. . .
Seems to me that you're wrong at the macro level about this and right at the micro level.
As a guide to what's happening in the real world, the most fundamental theories and laws of science beat, say, various religions' ideas that Pi is 3.0, that the earth (counting the generations) is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that God wants us to burn up every bit of fossil fuel as fast as we can (or he wouldn't have put them here those 6000+ years ago).
To put it another way, a science that updates its understanding as new facts come in beats (in accuracy) any dogma that's unwilling to recognize reality. Turns out that Galileo was right, thousands of abusing priests suggest the Pope really isn't infallible, we sometimes need a few more decimal places for Pi, the earth has been around quite a while, and burning fossil fuels in contributing to some extent in trapping a bit more of the sun's energy here on earth.
What we do know from science is that if you add energy to the planet's system, then we get things like more and more violent storms, melting ice, rising seas, and the like. That's somewhere around 99.9% true (science not claiming to be infallible). We can see and measure it for ourselves.
Where you're right is that figuring out the specifics of our incredibly complex climate system isn't something we're yet very good at. As a comparison, decades ago I worked with software vendors doing advanced non-linear finite element analysis. One of them, talked about how they were just about to crack the "air bag problem." This was the problem of figuring out what a car air bag was going to do in an accident -- and it was about as complicated a multi-physics problem we kind of had a handle on. Climate, as a multi-physics (and chemistry, etc.) problem is some orders of magnitude more complex than this. And our climate models share much of the non-linear finite element mathematical underpinnings of, say, the air bag problem.
What can be said is that the increased energy input to the earth IS demonstrably affecting our climate and that it would be just plain stupid not to take some common sense steps towards accommodating this.
For example, back in 2012 the North Caroline legislature, once it had a conservative majority, banned any predication of future sea rise, storm, etc. in giving permits for coastal development. Even the Democratic governor let it pass. No doubt wealthy land developers were behind much of this, buying a bit of political favor all around. The thing is, storms headed right now toward's North Carolina's beach front homes - with more in the future -- will likely trash many millions, maybe a billions, worth of recent development encouraged right in harms way.
Personally, I'm happy if an individual owner wants to build a beach front mansion in a flood zone. Just as long as they're willing to pay for their rescue, flood and storm damage, etc. I do think they should have been warned, given what we knew at the time. It probably wouldn't have hurt to ask developers to raise the homes a bit and take other protections (as we might similarly expect in tornado, earthquake, wild fire, etc. country -- all incidentally affected by more energy put into our climate system).
As it is, the developers will have gotten what they want (in part by making this party of identity politics) and the new beach front owners will be at least partially bailed out at our expense.
Most of the folks who don't want to accept even simple climate chemistry and thermodynamics are those profiting from it. Some (notably the oil-industry Kochs) have managed to make this part of a culture vs. science "war" to win political and even quasi-religious support for their profiteering.