It's not a question that can be answered with a simple yes or no. And despite what you say, it is not a simple question.

What exactly would you define as climate control measures? Do you think that everyone would agree on what constitutes climate control measures? Do you think that human beings can actually control the climate?

To what degree is climate change going to affect the earth and the people on it? Is this a catastrophic situation or is it more like the common cold and temporary?

If we spend trillions of dollars on what might be defined by some as climate control measures what will be the outcome? Will it stave off the complete end of the world or will it slow it down by a few weeks?

What are other countries doing and contributing to the cause? If the U.S. spends trillions and cuts our climate-harming activities to zero, will it matter if China, India and several other countries do nothing?

If we enter into an agreement with other countries to all do our part, can we be that they will honor their agreement?

Your question reminds me of the statement used so often by the left. "97% of all scientists agree that climate change is real and that humans contribute to it."

The problem with that statement is it's not really very specific about exactly what the scientist agree on. For instance, how bad is the climate change going to affect the planet? Again is it a life ending illness or a mild rash that will go away on its own? Is this a temporary cyclical condition or is it an unstoppable force that will bring about the end of the earth? How much are humans responsible for the condition? To state that 97% of scientists agree on something is saying nothing without specifics.

How effective are any measures that we might take going to be in the long term? If this is going to lead to a catastrophic event, can we actually prevent it? What are we willing to give up in order to try to mediate it? In other words, what are we buying and how much will it cost?

No, this is not a simple yes or no question.