I would make a distinction in that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. It is not whether your hypothesis can be proven, it is whether it cannot be disproven. A scientific theory may hold for some time, even though it is not technically correct, until a more accurate or detailed experiment can be devised to falsify the original theory. Pretty much all of the climate nonsense is unscientific in that they present an unfalsifiable hypothesis. They end up making models which are non-physical (i.e. not based on the laws of physics) that merely serve to generate "data" that reinforce the biases of their makers because their biases were built into the models. It has now progressed (or has been progressed) to the point where a new quasi religion is forming. Whether this was spontaneous and co-opted or planned from the start isn't yet clear, but it is being thrust forth as the new global religion that I call scientism. It looks, from the outside, a bit like science. But it isn't. The "scientists" are the new bishops and cardinals. They will tell you what to believe and any who oppose are heretics who are labelled "deniers".