It's actually worse than that. The topic of study is on the impact of climate change on Nebraska, but the bill says they're only supposed to look at "cyclical" changes.
I think it's more like asking biologists to study the effects of antibiotic resistance, but they're not allowed to use evolution and must assume that the DNA of the bacteria doesn't significantly change over time.
I'd agree with that analogy. Except I see this as commissioning a study to focus on other possible causes of antibiotic resistance outside of DNA changes. Or are you assuming that evolution of DNA is the only possible means of acquiring resistance to antibiotics? That perhaps the host environment plays no role?
The politics here should not be discounted. The group that's refusing is a politically appointed commission, and they taking a political position before they've even read the study proposal. They've gone to the media claiming that the study proposal is rigged because it contains the single word "cyclical". I would think this is not exactly the unbiased group that should be doing this research.
I thought I explained it clearly but I believe you still misunderstand the purpose of the study. It isn't analogous to "commissioning a study to focus on other possible causes of antibiotic resistance outside of DNA changes" because that's a question of basic science and the Nebraska legislature has neither the expertise nor the motive to ask basic science questions.
The original study isn't about finding evidence to re-affirm AGW any more than the modified study is about finding evidence to deny it. The studies are because the Nebraska legislature wants to know what's going to happen to Nebraska.
The modified study wants to know what will climate change do to Nebraska if there is no climate change. The motive of this pointless study is so the legislator can wave the study around and say "See! We commissioned a study to ask what global warming would do to Nebraska and even the scientists said it wouldn't do anything!"
By refusing to do the study the scientists are protecting the integrity of government funded science and are absolutely doing the right thing.