Please, humor us and give examples of how many times, since we have modern science, science had consistently been chasing the wrong answer for decades. There are exactly zero cases, so your argument is a straw-man from the get go. We do by now have decades worth of predictions from Scientists and Climate Change deniers, and Science has been consistently right*, while the deniers predictions having been consistently wrong. ,
Climate science alone had 2 major-major predictions which turned out to be wrong.
Actually they haven't.
According to accepted scientific methodology, this means existing theories had to be abandoned.
Correct, but no theory has been proven wrong*, but those models that didn't yield predictions in line with reality where discarded, hence the scientific method was followed. Since we can use past weather data to check if models can predict the development until today correctly, those models have gotten really good.
First one - consequencies of fires during first Iraq campaign. Tambora-style effects were predicted; nothing actually happened.
Aside of that, while being a subset of man made climate change, this not having anything to do with the climate change challenges we have today and are talking about, the model has not been proven wrong, as it hasn't been tested. The model was based in the assumption that putting out all those fires would take years, because with the methods known at the time it would have. With suddenly lots of oil well fired to put out, fire fighting technology went into overdrive and those fires where put out much, much quicker.
As far as CO2 was concerned those fires where irrelevant, they emitted less than 2 weeks worth of CO2 in the seven month until the last fire put out, but modelled the effects of the particulate matter in the atmosphere. While it predicted correctly what effect all the stuff would have on climate, temperatures dropped by ~6°C in the area, it failed to correctly model how the soot would move in the atmosphere. One of the major promoters of that hypothesis, Carl Sagen, later wrote in one of his books how and why they got it wrong. So much for not following the scientific method.
Second one, quite infamous, was hockey stick.
Infamous in deed, and quite entertaining these days. Fun fact: the Mann et al. "Hockey Stick" Paper has shown itself to be correct within its stated margin of error ..... 13 years ago. And yet, here you are, still paddling it....
There are quite a few examples where violating methodology principles for commercial reasons results in serious consequences. .
Yup, those made by climate change denying lobby organisations frequently do.
*well, those of the deniers have failed colossally