I'm not sure I understand your last point: Usually when you ask for research money, you don't know what the outcome of the study you want to do is.
Besides that, I'm not even convinced that you are right: I would think that a whole bunch of people would be interested in concluding that AGW is not a problem, given the political climate in the US especially. If you could convince everyone that the scientists got it completely wrong, I'm pretty sure even most of them would be relieved. It's just that you can't do that by attacking one argument here and one methodology there. You need to present a comprehensive and consistent framework that shows that AGW is not happening, and if someone did that I'm pretty sure it would be taken seriously. But noone does.
Instead of grasping at straws, why don't you just accept the maximum likelihood solution: most of the papers are correct and global warming is a problem.
Besides that, I'm not even convinced that you are right: I would think that a whole bunch of people would be interested in concluding that AGW is not a problem, given the political climate in the US especially. If you could convince everyone that the scientists got it completely wrong, I'm pretty sure even most of them would be relieved. It's just that you can't do that by attacking one argument here and one methodology there. You need to present a comprehensive and consistent framework that shows that AGW is not happening, and if someone did that I'm pretty sure it would be taken seriously. But noone does.
Instead of grasping at straws, why don't you just accept the maximum likelihood solution: most of the papers are correct and global warming is a problem.