In my mind, "scientists" who willfully ignore evidence to guarantee that cigarettes do not cause cancer or that Deepwater Horizon is not a big deal** should not be called scientists. They've exited that realm and have become consultants.
The vast majority of climate scientists forming a concensus (interpretation) that world climate is changing, that it's due to increasing atmospheric CO2, and that this is man-made is not of this ilk.
The vast majority (nearly all, I bet) are making Conflict Of Interest disclosures for their universities or the journals they publish in. And those COIs are probably public access, if you want to look into them.
**(I'm not sure the BP example is like the tobacco example, though. A company can buy scientists, sure. But its talking heads can also lie on their own about scientific content without asking a scientist at all. In the tobacco industry example, the faulty "scientists" were front and center)