Ah, one more clarification =)

From my point of view (being academically educated but not working in the science, not being a member of any political party, just living in the woods and observing the world news) it certainly doesn't look like there being a lot of politically motivated junk science. On the contrary, to me it seems rather alarming how our politicians ignore a lot of scientific research which would be there to aid them to make better decisions. Oh no no, all the time we see politicians making decisions against what the science says. It seems that political decisions are more based on old unverified myths and big money profit. If decisions A would be scientifically grounded but harmful for big company X, then politicians who got funding from X avoid making the decision A and instead make a decision B - which most of the scientists say will lead to problems. But who cares, as decision B leads to more profit for X. And more profit for me and my friends, isn't that the ultimate goal of the political system? =)

EDIT: OK, I wrote that bit too quickly =) Indeed, there is a thing like junk science. And some of it is politically motivated (but in those cases, to me it seems that this isn't that much because of external funding, but more because of the political agenda of those scientists.) But we can't just lump all "science" into one big box. The whole scientific community is a big thing, with many branches and schools. It varies from rather "hard data" of physics to much more "vague" interpretations of sociology and such. Now, if we are talking about the climate change, it comes much closer to the physical side, where it is pretty much harder to get your measurements biased because of your political beliefs. If the temperature is 100 F, the thermometer will say so, no matter if there is a right wing or a left wing scientist taking a look at the thermometer =)