1. directly to media, heard from media reports before any scientist made any statements

This shows the opposite is true. The point 1. was that the discover goes directly to the media, rather than publishing reports through the peer-review process. I'm pretty sure you didn't hear media reports from scientists doing studies.

5. has endured for centuries, the claim of centuries of progressive warming

You misunderstood the point, and the science. The point is that pseudoscience will assert that their theory is true because people have believed in their theory for centuries. This doesn't apply because the relevant phenomenon has only even existed for one century or...

1. directly to media, heard from media reports before any scientist made any statements

This shows the opposite is true. The point 1. was that the discover goes directly to the media, rather than publishing reports through the peer-review process. I'm pretty sure you didn't hear media reports from scientists doing studies.

5. has endured for centuries, the claim of centuries of progressive warming

You misunderstood the point, and the science. The point is that pseudoscience will assert that their theory is true because people have believed in their theory for centuries. This doesn't apply because the relevant phenomenon has only even existed for one century or so. Also, the science isn't claimed on this basis, but rather on extensive data and models.

7. new laws of nature . . . the point is to take credit for the equilibrium that will take place sooner or later

I don't understand your point. What new laws of nature are being asserted to support man-made climate change?