Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with this point. Just because scientific experiments are not repeatable does not mean "there's no science there." It just means all the variables aren't well understood yet. If unexplainable phenomena are observed, even in some percentage of the experiments, then IMHO that's more than enough reason to continue scientific research.
Meteorologists get their scientific predictions & models wrong all the time. They have a real hard time predicting the weather a couple days in advance. However, they're more right than wrong, and the field of meteorology has produced some good stuff. The fact that meteorological predictions are regularly not repeatable or consistent is no reason to shut down further research and work. It just means that the field doesn't understand all the relevant variables and underlying key phenomena yet. Same with cold fusion.
Well we're pretty sure there's weather, hence our ongoing effort to understand it. The problem with cold fusion is the experimenters need to prove there's something there worth studying. If they get past that point then I would agree with you. First things first though. Prove there's a phenomenon, then on to the real research.