Actually no, that's not how it works.
Actually, it is and you show it below. Someone (or group) did not believe the data or the explanations were sufficiently accurate and proceeded to find a better explanation. I hope we are not arguing semantics.
Generally accepted scientific theories are improved upon or thrown out all the time. That's how science moves forward.
Yep.
Newtonian gravity was accepted for centuries, and was then thrown out by relativity. Geocentric cosmology was an accepted scientific fact for 1500 years with models that could predict where the planets would be (scientific observation, data, and the ability to predict), it fell apart as we gained more knowledge and its predictive ability started to fail and was replaced, replaced again, and finally reached where we currently are (the religious push back didn't start until the model started to fail, and our current model has known flaws related to general relativity so it will eventually be replaced again). Stable earth was replaced with plate tectonics. Static universe replaced with expanding and then accelerating universe. Young earth (20-40 million years, not the biblical young earth theory) was scientific fact until the mid 1800s. The nature of light. Dalton's atomic theory. And on and on and on.
The Nobel Prize in physics this year was awarded to a group who proved that gravity moves in waves, as opposed to a previously explanation of a mechanical force.
You are not chastised for proving science wrong, you gain international scientific acclaim at the highest levels.
This is where the (in my opinion) religion of man made global warming/climate change is failing. There is ridicule for anyone challenging man made global warming/climate change. This forum is a prime example. I doubt many of us here are first hand experts in this field.
But there is a difference between proving science wrong and shouting "no no no no no" in the face of overwhelming data.
Agreed.
If someone has data that disproves a scientific theory they will be met with skepticism and scrutiny,
As they should be. A scientific theory is more than someone's hunch.
but if the data checks out they will handsomely rewarded.
If they can be given an objective chance.
It's easier to tear down a theory than come up with a new one.
Yep
So attack all the scientific facts you want, they could all be wrong. But unless you are preeminent expert in the field, the odds are that the consensus is more accurate than you.
To paraphrase one of my EE professors at TU, the odds do not guarantee anything.
Unless, of course, there is a vast global conspiracy...
I don't buy into that.
(I need to start just cutting and pasting into this thread)
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.