I agree completely, Sabre. Junk science is used by both sides on an issue. I think its a serious problem, not only because it makes it so difficult to pick through the clutter and try to find the truth, but because junk science demeans and weakens the reputation and credibility of science in general.
Bodhi, no sensible person denies the existence of global warming and cooling cycles over history (who can deny there was an Ice Age?). I think the main fear is that manmade emissions will collect in high enough concentrations in the atmosphere that they will permanently affect the natural cycles. That is, climate patterns may shift more rapidly than normal, be more extreme than normal and may be permanent rather than temporary (recognizing even a natural temporary pattern change could be longer than our lifetimes).
How it would affect you depends on where you live. I live in Minnesota, and I remember after a particularly frigid two week period years ago, I formed the group "Minnesotans for Global Warming". It never got off the ground, but my plan was to drive around the metro area in a parade of SUVs, spraying aerosol cans out the windows. I think the cold weather had affected my thinking, as I also thought the Herschel Walker trade was a brilliant move on the part of Vikings' general manager Mike Lynn and that the NorthStars wouldn't dare leave Minnesota. I was wrong on every count.