Do you need to stick your hand in a boiling pot to know its hot?

An interesting article appeared in CNN's sci-tech blog today. It appears that there isn't enough money in the federal budget to study the effects of climate change. Places like the NSF and NOAA aren't getting enough funding because they aren't being adjusted for inflation.

As a former scientist (kinda), I know that a great deal of the work is not just in the lab, but also begging for research funds. That tends to be difficult, especially with the myriad other projects vying for those "limited" tax dollars. "Climate change" and "The War on Terror(ism)©" have different gut reactions. Are we missing the point though?

Isn't it more important to be spending money on methods to actually stop what we already know? It is important not to go off half-cocked and try a solution without understanding the whole problem, but one thing is clear: Humans are responsible for increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere form 1750 (give or take) to the present day. Whatever wasn't natural, is us. Therefore we have a goal, and that is to remove our influence from the atmosphere. Is that money not better spent on things like reducing emissions, CO2 sequestration, and renewables?

The barbarians are already at the gate, should we take the time to count them, and categorize foot soldiers and horsemen, or should we rather devise a way to take out as many as possible with the least damage to ourselves?