My policy preference today is to invest heavily in things like hydro power and nuclear power as a base load solution, while also increasing investment in energy storage technologies to allow renewable-based energy to have 90%+ reliability. I know nuclear energy is expensive now, but Wright's law has done a lot for every other energy technology, and it will do the same for nuclear power.
And yes, I think that you should be burning oil or coal until you can get over 99% grid reliability with clean sources. Politicians should recognize that restricting energy supplies during times when there is high demand has a human cost, and that people will die without that energy.
A lot of people talk about "cheap renewables," and while renewable energy is pretty cheap when it's on, it's very expensive to produce 1W of solar power at night. We are in a situation where grids have to burn excess power when it is plentiful, and struggle to supply power when it is not. When the demand for energy is higher than the supply, you get energy restrictions. Energy restrictions are not about "total MW produced this month vs total MW demanded," they are about "total MW produced this ~hour vs total MW demanded." Once we have a scalable technology for grid-scale energy storage, renewable energy looks amazing. We don't have it now.
An actual climate denier would have no problems with continuing to use dinosaur-based power forever. I disagree.
As for studying the problem, it looks like the focus of science is skewed heavily toward computer models of just how bad things might be rather than computer models that will help us stop the bad things. This is why people make models of pandemics, for example.