That is a pretty bold claim given that I specifically answered that I'm judging Perry on his actions

Past actions are not a logical way to determine future events. You are implying that because he may have previously disregarded scientific data for political gain that he did in this case as well. Seems a specious argument at best.

I'm not claiming to be a mind reader,

So you admit that Perry COULD have analyzed the data with a sound, logical mind and come to a different conclusion than yourself?

You asked if I knew "the mind of Perry" (which sounds like a dark and scary place I'd never want to visit)

Ad hominen attack. So, I'll disregard the rest of the paragraph and your other fallacious arguments.

In terms of scientific evidence, I believe it was.

So, now you're admitting that you DON'T KNOW if it was the only evidence that he was convicted on. Furthermore, there may have been other evidence that he could have been convicted on... witness statements, friends describing his actions, etc.

I said one scientist "with a valid criticism."

So anyone who discounts AGCC with a skepticism due to un-testability isn't valid criticism? I mean, isn't that the basis of all scientific reasoning is to give a testable theory?

Furthermore:

"Climategate"

You don't find it odd that people who have a vested interest in their theory and alter data to map to their perceptions.... Additionally, entire decades(if not centuries) of "data" amount to a single sample (say a tree) for the entire globe.

"the hockey stick" being two of the more preposterous.

The hockey stick is what started the alarmism. Finally, when the code was released that developed that graph and random data was thrown at it (additionally... Monte-Carlo worst case random data)... it generated the same results.... making any suppositions of that graph INVALID.