Will US Climate Scientists All Move to France? Please?

Then why do they continue towards their CO2 reduction and renewable roll out targets?
and why do their universities, national science institutions and govts accept the science and research climate?
for they do…

“Then why do they continue towards their CO2 reduction and renewable roll out targets?”
Because taxpayers are footing the bill for projects that alleviate unemployment. I believe it takes 74 renewable workers to produce the same energy as one coal worker.
It also disguises past failed attempts to alleviate poverty in developing countries by diverting funds to them under the guise of climate change.
It conforms to the socialist idyll of spreading the wealth by tax instead of allowing developing countries to develop themselves. Socialists simply cannot resist the temptation to view anyone with less than them as poor lost souls who deserve their condescending charity. They would rather hand great wads of cash over to corrupt governments in the hope that some will trickle down to the needy. This according to my late father in law, a former UN forester who had the misfortune to deal with both Fidel and Raul Castro.
Universities and national science institutions have a vested interest because it’s the gravy train that just keeps giving. Have you never wondered why there are so many studies, I’m sure even you would consider barmy, that have climate change mentioned somewhere in them, simply to get funding. Grants have within them an overhead, rarely mentioned, for the Universities themselves. More grant’s more money, more nice campuses, more field trips to exotic locations to study increasingly obscure and, hitherto, impossible to justify phenomenons.
Meanwhile, there was an article on this blog the other day where the author asked a lecture room of microbiologists if climate change was the dominant threat to mankind. Not one of them agreed it was.
The support for the global warming cause is certainly not amongst educated individuals, it is amongst institutions who have embedded motives to promote it. And as Judith Curry, and numerous other notable scientists point out, woe betide any member of a scientific institution who vocalises dissent, because their jobs depend on compliance.
Surely this is obvious even to you Griff. The only credible study conducted on the overall, observable effect increased CO2 has had on the planet over the last 30 years was by NASA. Their satellite data revealed the planet has greened by 14%, entirely beneficial to mankind. Meanwhile, there are no credible, empirical studies which demonstrate CO2 causes global temperatures to rise.
There should be hundreds, if not thousands over the last 40 years to justify the obscene amounts of money being wasted on the subject, but there are none. Or perhaps there are, but they have been buried because the conclusions didn’t suit the objective of proving man is responsible for the planet warming. There are innumerable abandoned or inconclusive studies undertaken every year that never see the light of day because their conclusions didn’t meet their hypothetical objectives. But the grants are still paid to the institution conducting them.
The UN is heavily invested in this because one of it’s main objectives since WW2 is to help developing countries out of poverty, and almost universally it has failed miserably relative to the amount of money it has wasted. It’s in their interests to support the climate change hysteria to divert from those failures, and as a bureaucratic organisation, it is naturally inclined to both support and grow their organisation. To do that, they must have yet another reason to scare the pants off governments to provide yet more funds to continue yet another wild goose chase. They dare not be exposed as a failure, so the more elusive the objective, the better for them.