The reason global warming "science" has been corrupted is the same reason that social sciences have been corrupted: the politicization inherent in government grants. The agencies mostly control the funding, and we know how Obama's minions have wreaked havoc on the DEA, IRS, BLM, ATF/E, etc. Get the results they "suggest", or you won't get another grant. Even the CDC got into the act with the attempt to treat "firearms deaths" as a public health crisis, but to their credit the rank and file scientists opposed it.
It is actually safer from a corruption standpoint for pharmaceutical cos. and healthcare cos. to fund research than government grants. For example, I would trust the larger drug companies before I'd trust the CDC.
>>I would suggest that the least likely group of scientists to be corrupted (as opposed to those in the global warming scam) are the medical/pharmaceutical ones. <<
I didn’t say any of the scientists are corrupt, or corrupted, although there’s a few ringers in the thousands of scientists doing climate research. But the science itself has clearly been corrupted in both instances, although far more so in the case of climate research.
I was addressing the use of the science, i.e., the corruption of the results, not the research itself. Ms. Attkisson shows how badly the science surrounding vaccines has been abused, with both government and industry touting one side and ignoring the other completely. Frankly, I was amazed at what she managed to uncover and I follow the topic as a matter of personal interest.