Or they are someone who, as somebody who is *not* a scientist, as you have noted above, does not believe that further scientific study in the area would add any further understanding of value, and so the money is, in their view, more wisely spent elsewhere. They could be entirely wrong in this view, but they have it nonetheless.
Or as a scientist examining different questions, they see bigger returns on money spent elsewhere.
Or as an established scientist examining the question, they see further study by others as potentially conflicting with their own findings.
Or as a scientist examining the question, they see no testable predictions (string theory anyone?) and therefore reject the field from characterization as a science. But in this simple case, a politician funded by big coal finds an organized group armed with inconvenient evidence, then eliminates the messenger before the evidence gets any stronger.