Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Little things like the fact that none of the climactic changes in the last 1,000 years can be explained by CO2 levels in the atmosphere, especially when CO2 levels were higher than now, and temperatures were lower.
Little things like MARS WARMING UP, right now, with a distinct LACK of human-generated CO2.
Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it
Like "The planet is warming/cooling and we people are so powerful that we MUST be causing it, and we can fix it."
Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence. Like extreemely iffy computer models, which have been found to be using invalid rules that just happen to be in violation of observed physics.
Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
"Just go outside and decide for yourself."
Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature. The incessant ignoring of past climactic changes, that vastly PREDATE human industry which currently stands blamed.
Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms. Such as we must stop global warming, yet it is inevitable, and we cannot stop it.
Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).
Speaks for itself, we see the behavior only every single day.
Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature. Yet again, abject denial of history that does not fit the global warming blame game.
Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion,
sentiment, or distrust of established fact. See 3 of the above 4 statements.
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
theories that contradict what is known about nature. Yet again, ignoring and quiet denial of the factual history of earth climactic change that predates the 19th century.
Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific
methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.
The claims of numbers of scientists who claim it exists, so it MUST be real, and the vast majority of scientists qualified to have a respected opinion on the climate and weather activity, (Yes, scientists are not qualified to speak on anything they fancy, only on their areas of expertise) are NOT in agreement with the GW crowd.
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario. Every GW pusher I have heard interviewed, does exactly this, including the most recent one I heard on the way to Guard Drill last Sunday morning.