Considering the demarcation between valid science and pseudo-science

I'm having some fun before I get back to Jim Steele's recent YouTube videos, where he uses every underhanded trick to distract from, and minimize, our manmade global warming situation.

You see, after digesting his second video I got sidetracked into wondering about the mind's ability to ignore important valid information.  And I took an excursion into Massimo Pigiucci's "Nonsense on Stills."  His book inspired me to look him up on the internet and among other information I found some interviews.  I think he does a good job of outlining the problem for a novice like me.  

Since I like to imagine there are some other novice students of life looking in on these pages, I've put together highlights from his interview at "For Good Reason" and interjected some links to further reading, including a couple important videos related to climate science and the public dialogue in particular.  Given by Naomi Oreskes and Ben Santer respectively.  For good measure I've included the "Six Rules of Critical Thinking in Science".