No, it just means that I think it is.
Seems to me that there are some semantic issues involved here, but I am not disposed to argue them at this time. You didn't quote me accurately in your latest rejoinder, and I don't have the time to explain what I was getting at.
In what way was what I posted "inaccurate"??
The problem with "climate science" isn't the methodological approach used, which is fine. The problem is that said process has been deliberately corrupted, as the Climategate emails prove conclusively.