No, it doesn't. That's the kind of attitude that ignores perfectly good science that proves something you don't like just because you didn't like the authors or what they stand for.

What drives the science is irrelevant in the question of whether it's still science. As long as the data and methodology are sound, science was done. It's when either or both are compromised in order to make false claims that something ceases to be science.

If that was true there would not be any need to declare funding. Let's be real, everyone is funding their own agenda. If some scientist finds some effect that helps a corp or an activist group further their own mission, they get funding.

The finding might still be totally valid, but the visibility of the science and in particular the visibility of the science to the right people (legislators) can still be influenced by agenda driven entities.

So, the last 100 years of scientific research, then?

As long as science was done properly, the results are valid (even if the opinions on what those results mean may not be).

And if "not enough science was done" to rigorously investigate the entire landscape, that's not a failing of those doing the science. It's not their job to perform years-long work for nothing, so someone's going to have to pay for it, and academia has no money, independent research institutes only work on commission, and companies obviously only pay for studies they think will let them grow as a business. Especially in that last case, if the research does some funny stuff with the statistics (as is so often the case), that's on "us" (as in, the reviewers, publishers, and experts in the field) to call bullshit on, but "those who stand to gain pay for the research" has been driving research since before either of us was born.

Point is, you don't actually know what science is out there, because there are many layers between you and "the science". So people who mess with the visible of science or for that matter with the funding so that the science might not even happen, can influence your perception of what is true.

So, again: how is that an even remotely recent phenomenon? That's literally been the case since we invented domain-specific scientific publications.

Who cares if someone is funding their own agenda if it provides real results? The problem isn't the funding, it's the results.

What's the political agenda behind eating more/less red meat?

Climate change

...is not a political agenda.

If you're claiming that no politicians have made this their agenda, then I guess the planet is in trouble!

But it is, even if climate change is true. e.g. the original paper aim has nothing to do with climate change, but it mentions climate change 6 times in the paper and 5 more in the reference.