No, it's not science.
Talking about "concensus" and taking polls among "scientists" is not science.
Telling people to have faith in global warming despite lacking evidence is not science.
Smearing everybody who disagrees is not science.
And some mysterious computer-models without tangible predictions is not science either. If you can predict the climate, publish your predictions for each and every weather station so we can compare predicted values to actual values. (Oh, and yes, I do know the difference between weather and climate.) But no, we get some hazy predictions for something in 100 years, yet nothing for next year. - This is like a Nostradamus-book that I once stumbled upon, it was great at predicting the past, made no predictions about the immediate future and only made some predictions for something very, very far away in the future. That is not science.
Moronic arguments about weather vs. climate are not science. Yes, I do know that weather is unpredictable like the bubbles in boiling water - yet I can predict the temperature in the cattle when I know the imputs. And I can predict the temperature for the next seconds better than for the next hours. Yet for "climate models", for some mysterious reason, they claim to predict the temperature in 100 years, but cannot predict it for the next 3 years, because "that's weather". Complete nonsense. This shows that "climate models" are not much more than a modernized version of vodoo-mumbo-jumbo. I will give a climate model credit when it can predict the mean temperature for NEXT YEAR for all weather stations on all continents with significantly better accuracy than the "same as this year"-prediction. But of course that would not be alarmist enough. If you cannot beat the most simple possible prediction (that the temperature is the same next year) then your climate model is absolutely worthless.
Reusing that famous "hockey-stick" diagram forever is also not science. Why do most temperature graphs stop at the early 2000's? Because there was almost no warming since then, that's why.
Idiotic doomsday scenarios are also not science. In history, the warm periods were also the better periods for humans. This "end of the world" - "waterworld" - "runaway" nonsense is completely overblown. When the earth gets warmer, it also radiates more into space during the night, therefore more CO2 may indeed lead to some warmer years, but not to some "runaway" effect. BTW, oil production is at it's peak and will no longer significantly rise, therefore CO2-production will also level off and begin to fall in a few decades.