Any sort of request which has no basis in fact, no empirical evidence that would support such a position, or otherwise goes against the sensibilities of the common man would be frivilous or worse. Global warming, along with knife and gun control, are frivilous at the least, and possibly capricious or even malicious in intent. Their ends cannot be justified nor rationalized, they are purely the result of emotive expression or perhaps reactionary.

Lawmakers have a responsibility to the public not to waste their time, nor their staff's time, nor the floor's time, in developing or bringing such ridiculous motions. The magnitude of the cost is not the issue. Waste is waste. Even moreso if they go on the record against such a position, for the very notion that a legislator would oppose such a position would by its nature make it at the least frivilous in context. That is just plain logic. It is as ridiculous as asking them to put forth the motion that the sky be called now and hereafter green rather than blue.