That's all fine and dandy, but that wasn't the story just a few years ago. Back then there were some Russians scientists, as I recall, that predicted the solar cycle would prevail over anything else. They were called "deniers"
"stories" are the tragedy with science. I don't care who was called what and who changed stance. All I need to know is both sides of the argument and the strengths of their respective evidences.
Yes, but science is supposed to rest on falsifiability. The "story" is supposed to change because the hypotheses are supposed to become more refined. A previous hypothesis was tested and found wrong, and a new one is now put forward.
Without falsifiability there is no science. This same situation -- making the narrative fit the data instead of changing hypotheses -- is what led to Karl Popper's beautiful critique of Marxism (which also claimed to be scientific and also just changed the narrative once facts didn't match up with original forecasts)
Scientific-sounding speculation or scientific consensus is not the same as science. If all you have is speculation, you can change that willy-nilly, whereas if you had a hypothesis, a change would require a truly new way of looking at things.
Without falsifiability, you're never wrong -- you just keep changing your story. And if you're never wrong because you creatively adapt your story to meet changing conditions, you don't have science, you have religion.
