I am against having matters of science be something that even enter into notions of assenting or dissenting to the Church as a matter of principle. We did that before with models of the solar system, and it was a mistake then.
But the thing is, the "settled science" at that time was all in favor of the geocentric models (particularly the Tychonic). In fact, I would say that the science was far more in favor of the Tychonic model than the current science is in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming, since the only evidence for heliocentric models (such as stellar aberration or the stellar parallax) was not discovered until years after the controversy, whereas our current models are complex statistical behemoths which can be criticized at any of their parts.
So the problem in the Galileo affair was not that the Church put faith above science, since the science of the day in fact was on the side of the Church's verdict. The problem was that it chose a correct "Catholic" position for a matter of science. But the Church has no special guarantee of being correct in matters of science, and here it later turned out that the theories of the day were flawed, since they were missing important data.
So I am against tying the actions of a faithful Catholic to accepting one scientific theory or another, no matter how good the evidence for it. And it's not like this encyclical stands or falls on the role of man in climate change.