Saying CO2 is a problem is bound to become much more political. How does that have any effect on the science? It doesn't.

Of course it does. Science is predicated on scientists practicing honestly. If scientists deliberately suppress disconfirmatory data, then peer review and reproducibility constraints won't mean anything. (And no I'm not addressing climatology here, just making a general point.)

This does not mean you must assign a low probability to the science. It just means that this particular feature attenuates the odds you assign to it.

Remember: The fact that a theory is good (high probability) does not mean everything about it must be evidence of its credibility!