Confirmation bias masquerading as evidence to support the climate change church

I tackled the issue of the belief in climate change awhile back.  Then I went on to discuss "churches" in the generic sense, as it is just a small leap to get from there to the climate change church.

Science and religion get confused often and what you end up with is a church.  How can you tell a church from science?  Perhaps a way is through the understanding of the concept of confirmation bias.  That is to say, people will focus on what they want to believe, and whatever they find that supports this is what they'll cite as scientific evidence of what they already believe.  I think that is what's happening in politics with respect to the global warming issue.

If the science behind global warming was really science, they wouldn't be looking for it, per se.  But that is what the politicians are looking for.  They will approve science projects that only look for the existence of global warming and bingo!  there it is.  Why should anybody be surprised by the finding of global warming when politicians spend so much money looking for it?

If you believe it's there, you will pay money in order to find it.   If not, you'll spend money on something else. It can work the other way too.  For example, if cold fusion is a fraud, the government won't "waste" money on it.  Whatever is your bias in the first place is what determines the way you act.  It has nothing to do with truth, but what you believe is the truth.  The quest for the truth is not a quest for truth, but to confirm what is already believed.

That's not science. That's a church.

But what if cold fusion is not a fraud and it would solve the global warming issue?  What about all that spending on finding something that was already believed in the first place and what about that spending that might have solved the problem that you say you believe?  If each were explored with an open mind, the truth may have a chance to come out.  Not only that, but more.  For an open mind to situations may lead you to answers to problems.  Therefore, there is no need for denial, but there is a need for open minds.  Instead, what happens is that money gets spent on confirming what is believed and a possible solution for a possible problem gets starved for funds.

In any case, you will need energy.  Why not find that?  Even if fossil fuels caused global warming, what could that information do for anybody?  Stopping the use of fossil fuels will not happen regardless of any cause and effect with respect to the issue.

In the end, money gets spent to support a church. It doesn't get spent to solve problems that exist or may exist.