By Sam Huntington
There appear to be only two camps in this debate: those who swear that climate change will destroy all human life on earth, and the skeptics who simply want to see the data that supports such claims. It doesn’t help when both sides of this issue denigrate the discussion into name calling or character assassination. Of course, two scientists in the same field who agree on anything are as rare as the pale colored unicorn. In this regard, scientists appear not too far removed from cannibals: they are happy to serve one another up for dinner.
It is also not helpful when a PhD in animal husbandry goes on record supporting the climate change argument when he (or she) is no more qualified to do so than is a PhD in education or someone who drives a city bus. As citizens, we should be looking for a consensus among persons who actually are qualified to render an opinion about climate change.
Here's something else that doesn’t help: junk science. We define junk science as scientific data, research, or analysis that is spurious or fraudulent. In other words, arriving at scientific theories outside of the generally accepted scientific method of investigation. I have two examples of this:
