The current focus and funding priorities of the NSF, NOAA, the Uk Met Office and other agencies can be succinctly summarized by the introductory sentence in the BAMS paper
Ho, Chun Kit , David B. Stephenson, Matthew Collins, Christopher A. T. Ferro, Simon J. Brown. 2012: Calibration Strategies: A Source of Additional Uncertainty in Climate Change Projections. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Volume 93, Issue 1 (January 2012) pp. 21-26. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3110.1
which states
“Reliable projections of weather variables from climate models are required for the assessment of future climate change impacts (e.g., flooding, drought, temperature-related mortality, and crop yield).”
This is just one example of the top-down approach which we have shown in our papers (and with referral to other studies) to be a scientifically flawed methodology, but it is a mindset that permeates the funding agencies in the USA, UK and elsewhere.
In contrast, as I report in the post
the alternative bottom-up, resource-based perspective, which we conclude is not only scientifically robust but is of direct and immediate benefit to stakeholders and policymakers, is cavalierly dismissed. As the NSF Program Officer wrote
“The notion that one can usefully look at the incremental threat to a sector from any particular hazard is not a great conceptual leap forward. “
Until these fundings agencies can become “honest brokers” of the issues in climate science, we are going to continue to be preventing from robust examination of many of the issues in climate science, and more broadly, in environmental science.
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. 
