I would argue that no science can be reasonably described pseudo-science unless the balance of its practice is pseudo-scientific or if those within the subject, who do not practice pseudo-science, do not rally to reject the pseudo-scientific findings of those who do.
I agree that climate science is not itself pseudo-science but there surely was a deafening silence from within the subject when facile pseudo-scientific practices were exposed by Climategate. For whichever reason one might ascribe, this failure by the scientific community en masse to cut out this cancerous growth has done nothing to remedy, and has arguably served directly to further diminish, climate science’s descent into the realm of pseudo-science.
Just as the wildly pseudo-scientific health-beneficial claims of the British Chiropractic Association were insufficiently refuted by its collective membership – even though one surely knows there are many chiropractitioners who knew absolutely that these claims were suspect, but remained silent to enjoy the financial benefits of busy waiting rooms – far too many within the climate science community have failed in their duty as scientists to reject pseudo-scientific practices within their ranks.
Obviously, and notably, some have rightly spoken out against the practices which have been uncovered – Judy and Richard Muller being the most obvious to point out – but, rather than the ideologically motivated politicians and CAGW policy supporters on the ground, it is the labelling of scientists like these as heretics and “deniers” by climate scientists (and the abject failure of the climate science community to respond to these labels) which ultimately condemns climate science and earns it the label pseudo-science.
If climate science really is a swan, when is someone going to take issue with it walking and talking like a duck?