Salami, salami,

Boloney.

Of course, you deliberately didn't quote this part of the article:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to explain himself.

Nothing about the "scientific community" in the article, btw.

Also, remember this:

"They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Carl Sagan

You can't explain how a heliocentric theory can be derived from observation with or without telescopes because you don't understand how science works other than what you parrot from various wingnut websites.

BTW - The issue isn't climate change. The issue is what is causing it, and what, if anything, we can do about it.

That's so funny I forgot to laugh.

Political committees mouthing PC words are meaningless.

That you cannot tell the difference between the science academies of the major nations of the world and 'political committees' shows a level of ignorance uncommon even for you, PPJ.

Now. Tell me why Mars is getting warmer from solar activity and we're not.

Well, you do understand that the goechemistry(which is still not completely understood), the atmospheric dynamics, the size of the planet, etc. are all quite different than that
or our planet, so it doesn't follow that Mars is getting warmer from the same cause as our planet due to one or a combination of the differences I mentioned above.

Also, not everyone is convinced that the warming is due entirely to solar causes, do a little research on the subject, PPJ instead of relying on one NatGeo article.

Oh, and you omitted this from the NatGeo article

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

and this:

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

So one scientist has a theory you like, and therefore anthropogenic global warming is a cabal made up of climate scientists, Al Gore spreading his evil via air travel, etc.

As for the Medieval Warm Period, this is from the Wikipedia:

It was initially believed that the temperature changes were global. However, this view has been questioned; the 2001 IPCC report summarises this research, saying "...current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries".[2]

If there is any evidence you know of or can find that the MWP was global in extent, that would be interesting to see

Finally

excuse me..........

So let me be clear.

Global climate change is real and has been proven and has been on going for millions of years.

But "consensus" by X number of scientists does not mean that man made global warming is real...is a fact...exists.....it means that there is a general agreement.

It is a theory:

the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

Theorem:

an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory

Again: Man made (caused) global warming has not met the requirement of demonstratable proof.

Got anything to say on topic?

Or even any peer reviewed articles denying climate change being man made?