They get it wrong because they assume they have solved the problem of what is causing the changes in climate, rather than studying the changes to determine the cause. That they do this is caused by self-interest as rengerrebew's jibe points out. Even without the politicization climate science has undergone thanks to their causative theory having desirable political implications from the point of view of the Left, a funding mechanism based on peer review will create herd behavior: they fund people who are doing what they are doing, and don't fund competitors (cf. theoretical physics which was all string theory for about half a century even though string theory never made a testable prediction, no political impact at all involved in the herd behavior.)
Greenhouse gas warming cannot explain highly asymmetric warming concentrated in the Arctic: since CO2 is well distributed in the atmosphere, its effects should be uniform across the globe. Perhaps the NSF can fund some honest scientist who wants to get to the bottom of Arctic warming, by not assuming it's part and parcel of anthropogenic global warming.
In fact, there should be a requirement that on any scientific matter that has public policy implications, there is funding specifically earmarked for "red team" efforts working on alternatives to whatever the current consensus theory is.
