While such (and other) biases can and do exist within science, that is not an argument you can use to dismiss a specific claim. Also, there are mechanisms to combat that, tenure is one of them. It's also worth mentioning that the majority of labor in academia is done by grant students, who generally don't have much to do with grant applications and who reach their own conclusions. It's perfectly fine to be critical of science, but the starting point shouldn't be "there's self interest, so they might be acting out of self interest", because while that may be true, you can say that about a whole swathe of things.
A concrete example is the current state of high energy physics, where many seem to have lost perspective. You can argue against their lobbying for building a new particle collider at CERN and give very specific, scientific reasons for why that maybe shouldn't be done, and after all that argue that maybe their inability to confront these argument points to a certain social bias within the community. But you cannot a priori accuse them of such biases simply because "particle physicist are gonna want a collider!" - maybe they have good reason to want one.
The thing is, most people who do science are driven by curiosity, and are the first ones to try to disprove their own ideas. Because they know how hard it is to have a genuinely good, novel idea and don't want to pass their own off as that before they know it's the case. They're also people who aren't likely to take others at their word when making unsubstantiated claims.
Finally, there's a huge amount of influential powers that stand to lose from climate change policies. If your goal is to get grant money, then antagonizing the oil industry, car industry, hell the whole freight industry, maybe isn't the best plan, eh?
Politics has always had a corrupting influence on the purity of science, its an undeniable, historical fact. Treating scientists like a priesthood is fine, but only if you remember there are pedophile priests and other unsavory individuals lurking within their ranks. You cannot conflate the worthyness of the calling with individual deeds and intentions.
I am not anti-science by any means, I just think that its a more complex issue than it first appears. Science in the end is just a tool, how that tool is used depends upon who is wielding it.
Most of all though, do not assume any skepticism I express towards climatology in general comes hand-in-hand with a cavalier disregard for environmental and/or anti-pollution concerns. I care very much about conservation and environmentalism in general, I actually live a "greener" life-style than most, and that's always going to be reflected in my political stances.
However. That doesn't mean to say I'm automatically going to count on the ethical purity and nostradamus-like prescience of a wing of the scientific establishment that in order to have any practical use needs to work in conjunction with politicians and economists. Two "scientific" disciplines that I'm even less trusting of than the climatologists.
The world is changing very fast as it is, and without people really being consciously aware if it. A good example of this is when I look out at the skyline of the English town where I live. Practically every house, on every street has a chimney pot on its roof. Less than a hundred years ago every one of those would be billowing coal or woodsmoke for most of the year because that was how people heated their homes. Nowadays, you rarely see any emissions, ever and thats a scenario that no doubt has been repeated all across the British isles.
This is clearly a positive thing, but you have to wonder how much is it a case of simply displacing the problem because the gas and electric solutions that have superceded the need for fireplace/chimneys carry their own environmental costs. Is it just "out of sight, out of mind" assuming you don't live in proximity to one of the power stations and gas refineries...
Back then, saying to the public choose cleaner electric power over fossil-fuels offers a direct choice. Nowadays, its waaaay above the average person's pay-grade. Even at a national political level, how are the industrialized powers supposed to prevent countries in the developing world doing what they want on their territory? I mean, how do we stop Brazil destroying the Amazon? Go to war against them? Think about the carbon footprint of any sort of military invention
Bottom line is that its always going to be a political and economic issue between nations. And no amount of alarmist rhetoric from climatologists is going to change that.