Much like social science-ish, it attempts to use the methodology and borrow the respectability, but without the rigor or reproducibility.
People understand that science works, so they have glommed on to the word for whatever it is they are doing. Your shampoo is “Scientifically formulated”.
And as far as reputation, scientists are right up there with doctors and firemen as far as having respect. But then again, most are actually doing science, not academic think tank foundational fear mongering.
That's a good point - Since many people tend to lump all scientists together, the alarmist climate 'scientists' are trashing the reputations of those doing the hard sciences . I've come to view science today as existing in three distinct branches: legitimate science (rigor and reproducibility), social 'science' (fuzzy and feel-good), and climate 'science' (evil and deceptive).
“Don’t confuse climate science-ish with actual science.”
Since The National Academy of Sciences, The Royal Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Nature, and Scientific American, have all expressed themselves forcefully and dogmatically in favor of bogus climate science, the reputation of science as a whole is now in disrepute.
My condolences to real scientists who still do real scientific work.