Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

It was an opportunity to raise some interesting points. ArgumentsCon forfeited the last round leaving all my arguments unanswered. New arguments cannot be introduced in Con's final round, so he should be content with summarizing. I raised the issue early as to why trillions of dollars should be spent on policies that no one claims will have a significant effect on climate. Con's reply was that we should spend lesser trillions on policies that would have even less of an effect, not even measurable. Also unanswered was the detrimental effect on the US of refusing to develop the $300 trillion in fossil fuel resources when we need the revenue desperately. Con argues that China looks to the US to set an example. Have they improved their human rights record in the light of the US's example? They are not imposing air pollution standards for fear of economic loss, that also despite the US's example of strict pollution controls. It is not remotely plausible that China, or anyone else in the world, is going to abandon economic development in favor of CO2 crisis theory. Con could not cite a single reference to anyone who believes that would actually work. Con argues that the world scientific community says that climate change is real and imminent danger. Skeptics agree it is real, so that's not an issue. As to imminent danger, scientific truth is not determined by consensus, and if only the MIT scientists and the list in Wikipedia are considered, that is enough to prevent skeptics from being casually dismissed. The convincing evidence is that models claimed to describe climate clearly do not work. If it is an imminent danger, that is not a good reason to adopt policies that are extremely expensive and not even claimed to be effective. Consider, for example, the imminent danger posed by nuclear proliferation. How about covering the land area of the earth with Geiger counters every quarter mile, with automatic reporting of anomalous radiation. That would cost trillions of dollars and would be ineffective, in part because the radiation is easily shielded. Nonetheless, everyone would agree that nuclear proliferation is an imminent danger. That does not recommend expensive and useless policies. I suspect readers can come up with many examples of problems that have expensive yet ineffective solutions. We should pursue sensible policies of adapting to climate change and researching cost-effective climate engineering methods. SourcesPro provided tow references to the New Scientist, a non-refereed popular magazine. In one, the statement of journalist that the recent temperature rise is unprecedented was not sourced, and it contradicted by scientific literature referenced by the Environmental protection agency. The other article makes claims about crop growth with enhanced CO2. If one keeps clicking through, one scientific article is referenced, but it is contradicted by the literally hundreds that I referenced. One would think NASA would be a reliable source, but under Hansen, a CO2 fanatic, they have lost all credibility. Hansen says oceans will rise by 25 meters while the pro-CO2-crisis IPCC says nine inches. Under Hansen, the NASA global temperature data is continually revised upwards, contrary to the other three reliable sources. ===============The resolution is affirmed.