I profit nothing from money going to hard sciences.

Be that as it may, your argument, such as it is and what there is of it, rested on the notion that climate science is uniquely corrupted by their temporary fame and political attention (and their need to keep said fame and attention). Noting that many other branches of physics, at present and over the years, have had far greater funding and political attention lavished upon them (without notably impairing the quality of their scientific output - although a case can probably be made that their cost-effectiveness has dropped) is thus a relevant objection.

Funny, most scientists that I know are post-docs (no job security), PhD students (like me).

Ph.d. students in physics do not generally concern themselves with funding, which was what you were talking about. They have their funding, at least for the nonce. The people who worry about funding are the tenured staff. At least in the places I know of.

If climate science is not having political attention, than I cannot think of any area in science which is on the political radar.

Ah, ah, ah, that's not what I said. I said that singling out climate science as particularly - or even uniquely - culpable in this game is a dishonest rhetorical slight of hand. It is, to be blunt, reminiscent of the Creationist trick of pointing out that Evolution is a theory and as thus should be approached with an open mind and critically considered. (Which is, of course, true in the same sense and to the same extent that the theory of gravity should also be approached with an open mind and critically considered.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.