If you watch the video, their achievements are listed, so you can judge for yourself what their opinion is worth. And the point, in referring to Galileo, is that just because a large number of people believe something, even those who we should be able to trust, doesn't make it true; you have to actually look at the facts. I won't attempt to extol the virtues of my side of the debate as it is already done, very well, in the video I linked, and by people who actually research the topic.I teach writing and rhetoric, so let me parse some of this. First, there's the old argument by analogy, which is one of the weakest forms of argument possible. Yes, I realize that your claim about the "homocentric [sic] theory of global warming" is a slender connection to a geocentric model of the universe, but not that the Galileo reference doesn't necessarily prove anything pertaining to this discussion, for one simple reason: Galileo didn't prove all anthropocentric models wrong.
But the far more pressing issue is the slippery logic of "top scientists." People often claim they have "top" leaders in their respective fields on their side, but this is, more often than not, just a rhetorical bluff.
Here's a statement signed by a number of Nobel laureates about some of the most urgent challenges that we face. Global warming is one of them. I don't want to perpetuate the Nobel myth, but the prize does serve as a decent measure of who the "top" thinkers in various fields really are.
But you ignore the ability to more accurately predict the weather using a model that does not take manmade global warming into account.