There’s a bit of either/or fallacy in the idea that climate science is “either” pseudo science “or” it’s not. I believe it muddies the water a good bit to leave the formulation of the issue there.
It is universally true that any predictive science has a degree of uncertainty associated with it. Therefore, the value (formal inductive sense of the word) of an argument or proposition is dependent on the degree of probability with which it can be held. i.e. “There’s an 80% chance of rain tomorrow.” Actually what that statement says is that there’s an 80% probability that a binary formulation (rain or no rain) will tend to manifest in one of the possible binary states rather than the other. (Understanding this helped me to get over my loathing of the evening TV weather people.)
In this case, we would evaluate the quality of the weather person’s predictions by seeing if his/her predictions mapped to being correct 80% or better of the time. Sadly, I’ve done this casually in our area (central coast CA). It actually bears out…for awhile that is. Typically, predictive quality persists until a major, ongoing weather pattern changes. The most notable recurring events in our area seem to be El Nino and patterns that develop in the Gulf of Alaska that yank the jet stream north and south. When either, both or other substantial regional weather patterns occur, the weather people look like absolute blithering loons until their spreadsheet models catch up to current state. (Typically, if the change resulted in unexpected rain, the 10 day forecast will show rain continuing until forever, until such time as the spreadsheet stabilizes.) In short, when I hear about a major weather pattern changing in the winter, I keep a damn jacket in my truck all the time.
The point is with a few very profound exceptions (JCurry being first among those in my experience to date), the “climate” debate hinges on both sides claiming degrees of certainty that the nature of the problem does not support. I propose that it furthers the argument when the Joe Friday approach is used in place pejorative labeling, i.e. “Just the facts ma’am.” While it might be tempting to call something that looks ridiculous pseudo science, it’s probably better just to focus on looking at the details that seem to support a particular conclusion rather than spouting over arching indictment. (As a corollary, the idea that “But he started it!”…think IPCC…isn’t helpful either.) We can leave the commentary, name calling and rebuttal to talk radio, politicians and all others who know all and are unselfish enough to share their brilliance persistently and incessantly with the rest of us.