Science is a tool, like a screwdriver or a hammer. It just is, it's how you use it that's important. It won't uncover all the truths, instead it helps weed out those that aren't true or aren't provable. Don't use science or attempt to invoke it's credibility if you aren't willing to stand up to it.
I have some training in science, although I wouldn't consider myself a scientist. However, if we lose our rational heads in the name of politics, we can become lost along the way and the very kind of people the scientific establishment complains about -- the kooks that won't listen to reason.
However, if we choose to use science as an empirical path to knowledge, it has rules, and like any other path you must follow them. Here's a concise set from wikipedia:
* Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.
* Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).
* Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.
* Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.
* Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.
* Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:
* Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.
* Covariation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.
* Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.
This in short is what science is. Anyone that says that their data or theory is "scientific" must follow these rules. I'm sorry to say that many in this field that say this don't and are misleading seekers such as myself, and should be discarded as such -- unless you are looking for simple entertainment.
You can see why science has such problems in climate change, like many paranormal or fringe areas. You can form theories but you run into problems with prediction, control, and falsifiability. These allow an opening that the US government has used to further it's own political ends until this point, where it's both too late to stop and so abundantly obvious that they've switched to damage control.
Of course there are other paths to truth, but if you're going to use this particular one, follow the rules.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061228.POLAR28/TPStory/National
