If you get home in the mid-afternoon and you're really hungry, do you put on the roast for tonight's dinner and wait several hours for it to be ready, or do you have a quick sandwich now while you're preparing the roast?
A partial solution is better than sticking to the dogma that no solution be attempted until a wholly-conclusive one is found.
This assumes that reducing CO2 emissions is in fact a partial solution. It may not be; it may, on net, make things worse, because the cost of making the reductions may be greater than the expected benefits.
A good point, but climate change isn't an isolated issue. Most CO2 measures also address the issue of how we're going to supply resources to our universally-acknowledged overpopulation problem - increased efficiencies, alternate fuels, so on and so forth. Most of them provide benefits outside the climate change arena.
As I said in my post upthread, I agree that there are plenty of good reasons to reduce fossil fuel use regardless of where one stands on climate change; if we'd been smart we'd have made eliminating dependence on Middle Eastern oil a national priority in the 1970's.
A partial solution is better than sticking to the dogma that no solution be attempted until a wholly-conclusive one is found.