As far as I am concerned, there is not a shred of "science" regarding climate I am inclined to trust until it is disassociated from politics, and by that I mean the funding. The politics that drive climate research are all slanted one way. One single way, and no other. It is a giant teat the scientific community has been sucking off of, and their rigor in defending their "science" when it has been used inappropriately, out of context, or just plain lied about, has been far less than satisfactory to me.
There have been far too many (though not all) scientists who have said nothing about the way their research has been used, so as not to put their funding at risk. There has been big money in climate research.
But even more disturbing are the "scientists" who buy into global warming. The ones who are most vocal are those for whom earth sciences may not even be their primary discipline.
Global Warming is all political claptrap, especially (MOST ESPECIALLY) anthropogenic global warming.
There have been far too many (though not all) scientists who have said nothing about the way their research has been used, so as not to put their funding at risk. There has been big money in climate research.
But even more disturbing are the "scientists" who buy into global warming. The ones who are most vocal are those for whom earth sciences may not even be their primary discipline.
Global Warming is all political claptrap, especially (MOST ESPECIALLY) anthropogenic global warming.
I don't think the issue is so much that scientists get grant money from various government agencies; the issue is that too many of the politicians who direct how the moneys are allocated see in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) a golden opportunity to impose their lifelong dream of socialism under the guise of "science." Therefore, only certain grants get funded. In the climate sciences, this has created the situation where only people who toe the line regarding AGW get funded.
In other sciences, this has created an atmosphere where no matter what the research is about, the catchphrase "because of global warming" (or climate change) has to be thrown in, even though the research has nothing to do with climate. I went to a conference a few years ago, where I watched a woman talking about food safety challenges at the point of production (i.e. on the farms). She ended the talk with a little discourse on how there is more food poisoning than ever, proposed some reasons why that might be so, and threw in "because of global warming." I wanted to scream.
I should add that my whole career has been paid for by government (taxpayer) funding. That includes about 80% of my PhD and all of my research, supplies, publications, travel to conferences, everything--but I've never been told that I must tie my research to a certain topic, or that I must produce results that support a pre-ordained conclusion if I want to get more funding. I guess that's because most medical research isn't political in the way that climate science is.