Does it though? Your example about the sun and the earth is a false equivalency. In fact, you illustrate it yourself: "people believed". There was no (or very little) science involved in forming their conclusions; conclusions which science has now shown to be wrong.

Ironically, in doing so, you've highlighted a great example to show why we use the scientific method and how well it works - thereby weakening your own position that the science is not settled. And to that end, I think you should take 15 minutes and read this essay by Isaav Asimov:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

So when you say that climate change isn't settled science, my response is that you may be a little right: there are those who may overstate the science in order to push their own agenda. But you are, without a doubt, very wrong.

Mmm, so we should go off how the science "smells" vs what it says?

Also, for everyone who suggests that belief in the reality of climate change is politically motivated - what is the actual motivation? Sure plenty stand to profit from the sustainable energy industry, but if it was all a hoax in the first place, why would so many be pushing to go the hard way? Why not just throw in with traditional energy industries? Obviously the answer is that only one side in this "debate" is primarily politically motivated, and it's the side that stands to lose a lot of easy money, not the side that stands to make some lesser amount of hard money.

Well, it turned out that, when the planet moves around the sun, their apparent motion as seen from Earth still closely matches the prediction of the latest geocentric models. So, geocentrists were wrong, but not "Oh no tomorrow Mars will totally reverse course and we'll never understand why" wrong.

So, if you're betting on another Galileo moment, you're wrong. You're wrong now, and even in the unlikely case of a Copernican climate science revolution, you will remain wrong. Nature has this nasty habit of being consistent.