>That coverage does a poor job or is even harmful to all the citizens if it falls prey to the manipulations of the political parties and corporations which are making simply wrong claims, using the paid actors.

This is a statement that concerns that nature of contemporary journalism, and could equally be applied to the findings of the mainstream. You have found several dubious pieces which spread misconceptions -- whether those misconceptions come from a mainstream or skeptic perspective is beside the point. There are plenty of misconceptions in favour of the mainstream which are being spread -- and it's certainly not in the mainstream's interests. The point of the OP article is that a relatively larger number of skeptic views are spread, but that is to be expected when the figures are so imbalanced and has already been discussed elsewhere in this comments section.

>And that's what is happening behind the "climate change denial."

I'll be fair -- seeing as you are using quotes around "climate change denial", I will assume that it's not a term that you yourself favour. But is the term not very reminiscent of the word "heresy"? In what fine points do the terms differ?

>And these surely aren't Galileos:

>Viral video [....] sex with witches and demons [...] etc

I mean, OK, if your crusade is against these sorts of things, I can only wish you luck. I wouldn't pick that particular hill, though.

>The science behind the climate change was developed through the last 150 years. Those that denied until quite recently denied what was already proven 150 years ago, then much later started to deny what was proven 100 years ago etc.

I'm sure you are right, but I really fail to see how this is relevant or detracts from my earlier points.

>"Galileo was not dismissed by the scientific experts of his day. His theories and discoveries were controversial, but he was generally acclaimed by scientific authorities. He was punished for contradicting the Church’s entrenched philosophical commitments."

This is simply wrong. This is the main reason I'm responding at all -- I'm not interested in a long back-and-forth exchange, but I felt that this had to be addressed, and that I might just as well address the other points at the same time. The linked blog article contains no sources, and for good reason. He had adherents, of course, but so do many contemporary fringe scientists -- even climate change skeptics. Still, calling their views ``controversial'' is a gross understatement.

Here, for example is what Descartes has to say regarding Galileo:

“without having considered the first causes of nature, [Galileo] has merely looked for the explanations of a few particular effects, and he has thereby built without foundations” [1]

For a thorough review of the views of the Aristotelian establishment of the time, and the many flaws in Galileo's reasoning I recommend [2]. It may also be one of the most interesting (if not important) books that you'll ever read, and my poor argumentation here cannot do it justice.

>By the way Galileo was really the "first" in hist "front line": he constructed his own telescopes and was the first to see the moons orbiting around Jupiter

This is quite true. But one should also remember that in order to be first in his front line, he had to use equipment which very few of his contemporaries had access to -- which is why they were not initially able to confirm his findings, and many rejected them outright [3]. I do not think that "first in his front line" is how the majority of his contemporaries would have described him. And that, really, is the point.

[1] - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/

[2] - Feyerabend, Paul. Against method. Verso, 1993.

[3] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00774t5 -- I think. I recall hearing this on an epsiode of In Our Time, and I think it was this one.