Question: Why can't we have balanced research, studying both sides of the argument on Global Warming?

Answer: Because large scale government funding only comes about if there is an urgent crisis to be dealt with. If they open the debate to skeptical climate researchers, they would quickly establish that there is no case for catastrophic global warming, they would poke holes in the works by alarmists and they would kill the movement entirely.

By the time they did that, the funding would be gone. Which means they couldn't do that. In short, the closer we get to disproving the alarmist case for global warming, the less funding there is to study either side.

Thus, we can only exist in two states, one where there is no alarm about global warming (and no funding), the other where there is alarm (and funding for alarmists). We will never see a scenario where there is no alarm about global warming but there is tons of research examining both sides of the question.

NASA's Alarmist James Hansen's Credibility on Global Warming is Hovering Right at Absolute Zero

I've been a big fan of NASA all my life, but I know an overblown bureaucracy when I smell one. My Taxes pay for this scientist and I don't like the job he's doing. He is on the string of Barack Obama to promote cap and trade legislation, part of Obama's unconstitutional control of government policies here. In his most recent letter here, he reinforces his claims about global warming that have increasingly been shown to be supported by weak and flimsy arguments. We still have his dismal temperature database that John Coleman and Joseph D'Aleo reported on in segment 4, and that surfacestations.org surveyed, but Hansen has not cleaned up his act. So how does he respond to such weaknesses?

"We are continually burdened by sweeping FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, which reduce our ability to do science and write it up"

In other words, the complete documentation, which he has refused to provide in the past and which offers the only way to redeem his credibility (if it did not show such shoddy work and flawed data) is the very thing that he objects to addressing most of all.

Hansen's methods are closely tied to the climategate scandal and his refusal to recognize and act on what is most important to resolving credibility has one positive benefit. It will forever hamper his ability to promote his alarmist agenda.

We should downsize NASA since it has shown itself to have grown to a size that now produces irrelevent, conflicting work and has slid from the cause of science to that of advocacy. I previously talked of downsizing the EPA for passing the point of diminishing returns, and now we have another government agency that has proven itself to have grown beyond usefulness. Second best if we cannot downsize NASA immediately, we can make sure the dysfunctional department continues with the widely discredited James Hansen as the head so that we never forget that this organization has fallen from the true faith of the pursuit of science.