I'm fairly certain that when you want to research ANYTHING you get more grants and research dollars when you tie it into something everyone is concerned about, like AGW. Don't say you want to spend it studying the mating habits of gibbons in Madagascar... say that you want to study the effects of CHANGING CLIMATE on the mating habits of gibbons in Madagascar!
Now, if you have an agenda like, say, a fiercely anti-meat vegan who wants to stop everyone from eating meat might, you might be inclined to tie your concern in with theirs. Who cares about peer review? This stuff's going to spread in the media then bounce around on Facebook and in Internet forums for years! Vegans and vegetarians will never shut up about it even if it turns out to be untrue (kinda like anti-vaxers).
Strangely enough, studies like this can draw shitloads of funding. Now, a lot of times you have to make arguments that seem more relevant to things like humans, diseases like cancer or whatnot, to get attention. But it is almost never not-true when doing so, because
that is how basic science works. Rather, you would opt to defund Nasa because you'd rather not understand why they would want to build a camp on a volcanic island; just write it off as some expensive camping trip and government waste.
You're pulling from the book of Sarah Palin: "Let's not fund all those folks studying fruit flies in...Paris France!" (from the 2008 election run)
what that little cuntburger doesn't realize is that these models, the tiny drosophila, form the basis of modern genetics--and metric shittons of relevant funding goes in to applicable studies of all sorts of subjects that laymen looking to make an uniformed detractory talking point simply refuse to understand.
Don't do that. It makes you look stupid.
It is not as if climate scientists with government funding have no-one to answer to. They aren't "winning" funding by competing with an agenda. They are funded because they are competing with their own data and, yes, other climate scientists trying to scrape out a piece of that same pie. It is funny that you righteous deniars make any number of unfounded excuses towards the cynicism of how funding works and never come close to understanding it. They compete with each other, so it very much is in their best interest, in a way, to discredit a good number of their colleagues. But that is difficult when the data doesn't square with
that agenda. Not only that, it is not as if the government is scrutinizing the validity
of the data. That is for the scientific community,
which determines relevance outside the scope of funding. the NIH, et al determine funding based on the validity of methods and relevance of the subject.
This argument that "It is in the scientists' best interest to prove global warming because of money" does not reflect reality. Yet, at the same time, every one of you deniers that cries foul over scientific malfeasance for the volumes of valid research scrutinized annually will turn instantly, and completely without fail, to the 1 or 2 studies released by the fucking coal industry that denies every known piece of data. The fucking energy industry that, if nothing else, has every fucking reason to deny everything possible about climate change.
And this never bothers you. Not once.
It would be funny if you guys weren't so maddeningly obstinate and actually managed to put some
ignorant hillbillies that slept through 9th grade Chem class in a position to actually wreck necessary progress in science.