But there is no consensus on what the level of warming will be
You are right on this. There is no consensus on whether it will be bad or very bad.
nor is there consensus on the idea that the changes are harmful/damaging to our interests
If by "our interests" you mean the human race as a world, then you are wrong. The changes are definitely damaging, as a whole, even tough some individuals will obviously benefit.
On the contrary, there is a consensus that the planet will be just fine with or without global warming, and with or without humans or even life. But that was never the question.
or that an urgent mitigation based policy framework is needed
This part is no longer the scientific debate but the political one. Obviously, there is no scientific consensus on politics, and there will never be.
. There is an enormous amount of disagreement here, scientific disagreement, as there should be because honest truth is we do not know what impacts are likely to be
We don't know. We expect. With the current sate of science, we expect that the Earth will not explode tomorrow. Therefore it is rational to live as if the Earth won't explode. However, we also expect that the Earth will be warmer because of human activity. The rational way to live is not to do nothing until we precisely know if the Earth will warm by 1 or 3 or 5 degrees. It is to lower our emissions to avoid part of the warming. If in 5 or 10 years new scientific studies prove us wrong, then fine, we will just have to start polluting again.
Climate science discussion is so slippery, constantly confusing, conflating and switching in utterly different subjects of discussion. The most generous critique I can muster is that this is at very best, chronic intellectual sloppiness/laziness. And people wring their hands and lament on the lack of trust....
That sir, is the usual excuse for not doing anything. The debate is slippery, so let's not do anything. The debate is slippery mainly because there are still a lot of deniers, not because it isn't interesting.