I'm not sure what you mean by flawed climate models. Climate models are investigative tools, since we can't experiment with other Earths to see what happens to climate. The basic atmospheric CO2 effect on Earth's radiative balance is not speculation; there is a reason based on basic physics that CO2 is called a greenhouse gas.
So why risk an entire planets economy for a theory that can't be anywhere near proved?
Because ignoring what could happen while waiting for definitive proof could be dangerous. But note that I'm not favoring risking an entire planet's economy: the world's (particularly developed countries) economic dependence on fossil fuels is already doing that. If you don't believe me, examine the scenarios related to a successful terrorist strike on Saudi Arabia's main oil production facility.
You apparently know a lot more than I about "global warming".
Possibly.
I believe that the earth is warming. I don't think it has anything to do with people. If it does, the consensus is that nothing can be done by people to stop it.
Relative to my earlier comment, and a posting I just made about the prospects for cellulosic ethanol, what can be done about it is to change the way we produce and use energy. There are MAJOR reasons that this is a good idea, and the positive effects for climate are about sixth on the list. But if we change the way society produces and uses energy, something will have been done about climate, and the economy will probably be safer too.
So why waste resources better used elsewhere to attack a problem that cannot be affected by any reasonable efforts?
I'd prefer to focus our resources on strategies that will be beneficial and effective.