Indeed, it should be entirely privately funded. Thus we can focus on the research that matters: only that which can be monetized within the next 4 quarters or sooner!
Define privately funded. By the oil industry? It's pretty hard to find finding from unbiased sources, much less sources who will fund you in the future if you produce results contrary to what they expects. Certainly politicians and the govt are hardly unbiased, as they want to fund studies that side with their campaign contributors.
A grant to investigate the sources of the observed cyclical changes in the global climate is not unreasonable given some of the conflicting evidence and studies. I don't see that it's in direct conflict with evidence suggesting that man-made pollution is a driver of climate change. The real crime is that both sides of the argument want an all-or-nothing answer, saying either man is entirely responsible or man has no influence. The real answer is that climate change is driven by many factors including elevated CO2 levels because we are pumping carbon of the the ground and putting it in the air (burning fossil fuels), cyclical changes in solar output, etc.