Oh, there may be some token drop of funding, but all you're doing is again showing your ignorance. There's a lot more to the funding on global warming than playing the stupid politics game, and there are very real purposes for the research taking place on the subject. Some of the research is being used-- even while the global warming issue is sourcing this data-- in assisting geological predictions for the purpose of land and mineral rights right now. For all the bluster about how the scientists obviously have some ulterior motive, the government and private companies seem perfectly pleased to utilize their data for the purpose of claiming rights to natural resources, particularly in the Arctic. Further, oil is somewhere around four times as expensive to extract as it was 30 years ago, and anyone thinking that this isn't precisely the reason companies like Exxon and individuals like T. Boone Pickens have already been spending gobs of money on research for alternatives then you're stupid or naive. Back to the geological part, though, there is a demonstrably heavy agricultural influence in US politics (and in other nations), and regardless of what someone wants to conclude politically crop returns and soil erosion are big enough deals to necessitate further scientific study by these organizations-- trying to fold them and re-create some new ones would be ridiculously wasteful (and hypocritical of the populist ideologues). What's so stupid about the anti-intellectual populism is that it asserts that such changes wouldn't affect everyone clearly, and it would every time you visit the gas station or the grocery, and no politician is going to risk that no matter how stupid they are about the science. Like him or hate him, Obama was correct in that there are other nations surpassing the US in alternative energy research, and just because some other administration might phrase it differently for political purposes it doesn't change the fact that money will be spent on figuring out how to mitigate any gaps that appear and retain intellectual dominance of the nation. One of the most important aspects of immigration (a separate debate) in this country happens to be the huge amount of brain trust that the US absorbs from all over the world, and this applies to climate science along with others. It's antithetical to national interests to cut science funding-- which is beginning to become evidenced by Bush's hamstringing of stem cell research as an example-- and far more often than not a politician's political ideologies are going to clash with national interests if they think cutting funding is going to be worthwhile.
So, you want to know what's going to happen to the IPCC? Very little, if anything. Want to know what will happen to funding? At best, a political term or so of lowered funding (but not much lower). And in the meantime, if any funding gets cut too far you'll see scientists applying for work visas to continue their study elsewhere, which will cause some concern among public and private interests in keeping reasonably-paid scientists close, and there won't be any silly televised debates about whether to increase funding to bring researchers back. And all the while, the ignorant anti-intellectual populists will consider themselves winners while the world continues to research and study, shaking their heads at the stupidity of a few political groups who equate populist victories with political or scientific ones.
Like I said, it's inevitable. All the populist anger in the world isn't going to change what's actually happening in the climate, and the wheels of business, commerce, and eventually politics are going to be driven by what actually is and not what a bunch of anti-intellectuals want. But go ahead and feel free to respond with more incredulity instead of actually refuting anything with substance.
