First, there was outright denial. People didn't believe the climate is changing. (Back then, climate change was commonly called "global warming," though that term was a little simplistic.)
As the evidence became ever more overwhelming, people were forced to admit that climate change is real. So they tried a different approach; they simply described it as a natural process.
It's a clever argument. The climate does change over time, and how can one distinguish between natural and human-caused climate change?
First, it's important to appreciate the fact that we really do have the ability to alter the climate. In fact, humans began modifying the climate centuries ago, maybe even thousands of years ago.
Second, I have substantial faith in the scientific community - or the scientific method. There are many scientists who have sold out to corporate interests, but what would the global scientific community have to gain by making up a fairy tale about climate change?
The following paragraph raises a lot of red flags:
Moreover, I personally find some of the methods employed by
climatologists themselves nonscientific, the prime examples of that
being silencing the skeptics by non-scientific methods such as
personal attacks, brushing off evidence that contradicts their
findings (such as the existence of medieval warm period), popular
appeals by non-experts (Greta), etc.
It sounds like you're suggesting a conspiracy. As I stated above, the scientific community is generally more honest than politicians. I've heard many politicians engage in personal attacks and brush off inconvenient evidence when discussing (or attempting to NOT discuss) climate change. I'm rather surprised to hear that these are common strategies among scientists. Can you give us some examples?
A little logic can be a big help.
First, we know climate change is real.
Second, we know humans are capable of causing climate change, a belief supported by scientific research.
Corporate interests would not like to see their profit margin compromised by public concern over environmental woes. So if you want to talk conspiracy, you might want to consider the possibility that propagandists working for corporate interests cooked up the pseudo-theory about our current climate change event being nothing more than a natural event.
Is, in your opinion, either the theory of human-caused climate change
or its denial a pseudoscience?
In my opinion, the theory of human caused climate change is science. Its denial is simply propaganda. Perhaps we could all it a combination of propaganda and ignorance. After all, many people with little understanding of science may simply be misled.