You are making a strawman.

Ask meteorologists about their models and they will honestly tell you the limitations of such models and the success rate at predicting the weather. They have little incentive to lie.

It will be difficult to find meteorologists with clear "anti snow" or "pro rain" biases.

Same goes for getting a blood check: they are not 100% reliable, yet it's difficult to find a lab with an ideological bias skewing the results.

Then, ask economists and you'll quickly find out that their predictions and advice on economic policies aligns with the school of though they belong to.

Politicians routinely ask for advice from this or that economist depending on what they want to hear.

Politicians commonly ask advice from this or that scientist depending on what they want to hear rather than looking for peer reviewed models. I would say that's a problem of a different nature.

Nice example.

Economics almost by definition can not make good predictions wanted by the public, because as soon you figure out precise model “a” of the economy, the economy takes the model “a” into account and mutates to model “b”.