These are stories of the political corruption of science. Politicians work to forge a consensus, they use persuasion, intimidation, and avoid or suppress debate. Debating an issue leads to education, it shows the question is more complex than it appears, it makes the public consider all sides. Education leads to caution, not action. The politician wants a decision, he wants action, so no debate. Once the consensus is formed, the public votes, laws are passed, regulations issued, the minority concedes, and conflict is avoided. Science is not a belief. It exists to challenge the consensus view. It is how one person can show the overwhelming majority is mistaken. Scientists do not vote, they debate. They gather facts, make observations, and analyze the data and try to show the consensus opinion is wrong. Politicians and scientists don’t mix. They are like fire and water, opposites. But, what about when no one trusts the politician and he must have a scientist for back up? What happens when the government becomes the sole source of research money? We address the attempt by politicians to control scientific research and research outcomes. They do this by selectively funding projects that look for potential disasters, ideally global disasters. People love disaster stories, journalists love disaster stories, scientists love to be quoted in newspapers and on television. If you frighten people enough, they will give up their rights for security, increasing government power. So, it is not surprising that as government has taken over funding scientific research, scientists have migrated from research that helps people, to researching possible catastrophes, no matter how remote the possibility. Science has devolved from improving human lives to developing plots for disaster movies.