Ignoring your attempt to drag religion into an otherwise insightful comment, it's an interesting question.
I guess the truth is that there's a pretty large amount of uncertainty about the effects of global warming. Such uncertainty would make the deliberate warming of the globe ill advised. But that same uncertainty tends to gut arguments that we should take drastic action, such as the misanthropic neo-luddite position that we need a strong central world government that is largely socialist in order to control the actions of multinational corporations, and/or individual government actions to reduce us back to a "low energy" society world-wide (i.e. back to third world standards of living).
If you object to my characterization of socialist, realize that it would necessarily involve the governmental power to dictate the utilization (or disuse) of capital resources, the very definition of socialism.
Ultimately, taking a "wait and see" position is taking a position of optimism in humanity, and having faith that the people of today and tomorrow will have the intelligence and problem solving ability to develop technology in response to actual problems that arise.
The irony is that to take the pessimistic position that humanity will blindly run things into the ground and not do anything about it requires faith in technology as well, faith in the computer simulations of a chaotic system (actually two, climate and economic), designed primarily by people with a leftist political bias, and fed only 40 years of reliable detailed data in combination with historical data extrapolated from ice cores with a significant margin for error.
Which position is the smallest leap of faith? That humanity will be able to find solutions to any pressing problems that arise, or faith that a computer simulation of a very chaotic system based on limited data and designed by those with a political bias is correct? And to go further, that we should spend trillions of dollars of resources to address these problems that haven't happened yet?
To me the latter position is untenable. It's not a question of politics when examined in these terms, it's a question of healthy scientific skepticism and an application of taking the position that requires the smallest leap of faith.