I'm having some difficulty determining why you have gotten so much pushback on this thread. My suspicions are:
1) You chose to initially focus on "politically liberal" science and in so doing put a burr under the saddle of some A2K liberals and/or
2) You personally are the burr under the saddle of many A2K members
Science that is driven to predetermined conclusions by any political ideology is "bad science"
Bad science that is used to confirm favored conclusions that satisfy one political ideology or another is "really bad science" and really bad politics.
Science that reaches predetermined conclusions for financial reward is "bad science" conducted by "bad scientists"
All of these things are true because scientists are human beings and not demi-gods.
The scientific method is pretty close to being divine, but then the monkeys in white coats start messing with it.
From a political standpoint, it is the case that the one side that constantly declares it worships SCIENCE is just as bad as the other in terms of picking and choosing what science it accepts.
I think we are in a period of time when science is subjected to the influence of politics almost as much as it once was under the thumb of religion. Heretical scientists are not being burned at the stake but their reputations and livelihoods are in jeopardy if they go against the politically correct grain.
IMO, one of the worst culprits is Bill Nye the laughable "Science Guy" He's not a scientist and yet he encourages everyone to think he is. In terms of "science", he is a classic demagogue. If anyone is getting their "science" from Nye it's because they are politically very liberal. There may be a similar fool who uses science to support conservative ideas, but I haven't run across him and that's probably due to the fact that the entertainment industry and the news media are overwhelmingly liberal.
I've no doubt that there are plenty of scientists who place science well above ideology, but most people do not...no matter what they may claim, and in the age of the internet they will always be able to find "scientific proof" that their particular ideological holy grail is confirmed. (e.g. GMOs are dangerous, fracking will destroy humanity, salt will kill you, climate change is a hoax, etc etc etc)
How many times do we see someone suggesting that because 1,000 or more "experts" agree with their "scientific" conclusion (or for that matter "legal") they must be right? It's utterly meaningless and yet we see it all of the time.
I find it difficult to believe anything that is told to me about Climate Change. Instead, I look to economics which is very often the revealer of truth.
Investors are still pouring billions of dollars into coastal development. These people are in it for the long term and they don't invest based on ideology. They also have access to all of the scientific research. Could they all be wrong? Of course, but people who have fortunes to lose if they are, usually are not.
Our government's budget, under Obama, allocated about 8% of all funds to mitigation. Most of the rest went to "research" and publicity. If they were so certain Climate Change was the real deal and such a threat, why did we need more research and why wouldn't we be investing in mitigation when any sane person had to know that responses like the Green New Deal would never fly? Might they have been motivated by politics rather than science? Absolutely. We should never minimize the influence of incompetence, self-interest, and idiocy.
Right now the frontrunner of the 2020 Dems is saying "We care about the truth, not facts" and the crowd went wild.