Being a 'professional' researcher is far less about what you are researching now, as keeping a steady series of research proposals running over a number of years. So whilst I might get paid for this year's project, if the cash dries up there's going to be some casualties.
It's also wrong to concentrate solely on the profs here too. Most high level research projects rely heavily on good quality RAs and to a lesser extent RSs. Where the prof is likely to keep their job regardless of the conclusions, those lesser lights can get shed pretty quickly, and sometimes that makes them, shall we say, over-eager.
The simple truth is that bias is a major factor in all forms of scientific research anytime the results are not 'double-blind'. By its nature it's very difficult to make CC research double-blind!
Another part of funding it is important to understand is that written papers are a massive part of how the research team is graded. For most this of course means the standard peer reviewed periodicals, and for the most part these are very good at filtering out the rubbish (although it is worth noting that on occasion an unconventional theory has been rejected from this route even though later proved to be correct). However, if you can create a stir in one of the more 'populist' publications this can actually significantly boost your score, partly because it usually leads to a series of further publications. Note that this applies to both sides of the debate!
Finally, I am not sure if this is true of the States, but over here the main research grant committee cites 'relevance' as a major factor in funding decisions. In practise this means that if you can link your project to a major issue, and there's nothing flagged higher than CC right now, you re much more likely to receive a grant. So instead of researching the habitable tolerance range of insects, instead you research the potential spread of malaria into Europe due to GW. That's not the best example, but this is a sample of the way research proposals are re-worded in order to achieve funding.
And mike777's point is correct, but only to a point. The political debate is probably far more important than the scientific one at this stage. The world needs solutions now, and in the short term the politicians (particularly of USA, China and India) get to step up to the plate.
However, in the longer term it's the scientists and engineers that (I think) will be at the forefront of things. The scientists to complete the understanding, and the engineers to produce the solutions. I think anyone that really understands human nature should be able to see that emissions targets are unlikely to provide a solution. Why should the average Chinese or Indian not be as well off as the average Brit or American? Similarly how can any President hope to be elected promising to slash the standard of living for pretty much everyone? The current political posturing is bordering on cloud cuckoo land in terms of a long-term solution.
So I would not describe CC as a political debate - perhaps more like an investment opportunity!
(-: Zel :-)
Help
)