Welcome, Ginko. I share your disdain for the article in the National Geographic. However, I'm not so sure that the Global Research article is an adequate rejoinder, and looking at its website, I get the impression that it may be wearing some blinders of its own.
That the average temperature of the earth has risen by around 1 deg. C since 1850 is something we can all agree on: the issue is what has caused it, whether or not it's dangerous, and whether climate feedbacks on water vapour, the predominant greenhouse gas, are positive, negative or neutral. In my personal opinion, it's not a serious issue, but has become the poster child for those concerned about the environment. It's just the latest Big Scare of the type that in the past might have come under the banner of the coming end of the world due to the folly of man. Attempted action against it is far scarier, and the heavy resources being ploughed into it could be being directed towards genuine environmental issues.
Never for a moment does National Geographic seek to challenge the view that science could have exaggerated the issue; it cherry picks its examples and seems to think that climate change "deniers" must hold similarly anti-consensual views in all areas of science. Actually, many who post here are ardent climate change supporters, but at the same time may be ardent supporters of psi, not so much against evolution but against neo-Darwininist explanations of it, against the evidence for black holes, the Big Bang and inflation, pro-vaxers, and hold popular or unpopular stances on a variety of scientific issues of the day.
National Geographic doesn't really appreciate that all sorts of world views are possible. That some might agree with them on climate change, but disagree on other issues, or disagree with them on that and agree on others. And that's where their essentially ideological underwear becomes most visible. It doesn't ask itself why it is that it holds the views it does; doesn't really question its own biases.
The fact is, it's a big world and people hold all sorts of views. You can't categorise one group as pro-, and the other as anti-science. You can't demonise a particular group across the board for disgreeing about one or two specific areas of scientific controversy. What we are seeing, really, is the entrenchment of scientism, and the appearance of great intolerance for differing views. It's becoming less and less possible to be a genuine sceptic for fear of upsetting the applecart and losing one's job. That more than anything is what is disturbing: the essence of science is healthy scepticism. History abounds with examples where heretical views, in the end, became scientifically accepted. It also abounds with examples where it didn't, but without the healthy argument, progress would long ago have become impossible: we'd still be being led by the old religionists as opposed to the new ones.
Currently, in many areas science tries to go beyond its reach; tries to dogmatise that which it genuinely doesn't yet know, and to close down debate. That's what makes it scientism: what makes pundits like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins the archbishops and proselytisers of a particular world view, and what gives a large number of people the borrowed authority to rely on it. It'll all come to a crunch at some point and we'll see a paradigm shift or two, and at that point, some new world view will come into being as we stumble on into the future on some new bases of understanding, which we'll also, erroneously, elevate to the status of certainty.
Such it ever was, and for the foreseeable future, will be. But I'm an optimist: in the fullness of time, we will approach closer and closer to Truth. One can only hope that the process isn't fraught with too much pain and suffering.