"Trevor Harley" wrote:

....
But how else can we evaluate the GW hypothesis apart from the predictions
it makes? And IF it really does make contradictory predictions that can
account for any observied outcome, then it's not a true scientific
hypothesis. It's a pseudoscience, like psychoanalysis.

The large-scale predictions are being borne out by observations, e.g. the
climate as a whole is warming, the Arctic is warming faster than average,
atmospheric water vapour is rising and leading to an increase in intense
precipitation events, sea level is rising and so on. Predictions are bound
to be less certain over smaller areas and shorter timescales. I don't think
getting some of the detail wrong makes it pseudoscience.