The issues in Science you describe are honest human mistakes, but we are beyond that. The mainstream media and establishments have declared themselves the arbiters of Science and now if they want the populous to do something but the populous resist, they just mindlessly say "follow the science" which itself is actually meaningless statement. Science is impartial. It takes not sides and can lead you anywhere, both bad and good. Furthermore, if there was science to follow (assuming that is where you want to go), they would be able to provide you with the data to back it up. In order to be repeatable, a scientific experiment has to be transparent and well documented. And yet somehow they never provide any data or proof that what they are saying is true. That is fundamentally unscientific. Pfizer never wanted to release any of their clinical trials. When they were forced to release data, it was found to be really poorly done and had inconsistencies that point to parts of it (at least) being faked.
As for scientific consensus, that is not a thing. The data and experimental results should speak for themselves. If you're having to point to scientific consensus instead of real data and results, you're clearly trying to subvert science, not uphold it's principals. You mentioned Alfred Wegener who was not believed due to scientific consensus but ended up being correct in the end. However, there are many more examples of this. My favorite is of Ignaz Semmelweis. He experimentally showed that using antiseptic procedures saved lives. They ignored him despite his unambiguous data. They ended up throwing him in an insane asylum where he died soon after. And they didn't (or at least should not have) had any motive to disbelieve him. Now you take something like COVID and climate change where scientists are paid to believe in the lies they propagate (COVID - Paid to administer the vax, Climate Change - Lost of government grants for climate science, if it stops being a threat these guys would lose their jobs).
I will end on the last and most modern method to fake science. Computer models. For example, in Ontario, Canada during the scamdemic, they had 3 allegedly independent models showing what would happen due to the virus which they used to justify their authoritarian response. It should come as no surprise (if you know how these people operate) that all 3 supposedly independent models vastly over-estimated the number of deaths and hospitalizations when compared to what ended up happening. It makes it quiet clear that none of these models were actually independent and they were just tuned to produce the result they wanted so they could implement the measure they wanted. The fundamental problem is that these models are so complex and have so many variables and with most being chaotic (very sensitive to initial conditions) that you can create a plausibly tuned model with any results. That makes these models unfalsifiable (because you can always go back and "fix" them to fit the data coming in) and fundamentally unscientific (if you can't create an experiment to prove something false, it is unscientific).
And that is what "climate change" is based on. Models that keep predicting disasters and keep being wrong. When they are wrong, they fix them to fit the new data with the model still predicting disaster in the future, to keep the narrative going and to keep the so-called scientists creating these garbage models well funded. Their latest name change is also clever. It's now called "climate change". Might as well re-name it to "the weather". Also, the 97% so-called consensus they beat us over the head is based on a really un-scientific study. For example, the study was based on a survey they conducted (they chose who to survey, that in itself is a problem). If a scientists answered that he believes that mankind likely does affect the climate but not necessarily in a critical way, they were added to the 97% which was then sold as 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is an existential threat. There was a youtube video that did a really good job of dismantling all the issues with that study however I can no longer find (either taken down or suppressed). In fact, Youtube has done a really good job of making sure you will never find alternate view points on climate change. I just tried to search for some and they were all supressed. That is also unscientific, scientific data is supposed to be open to scrutiny and should only be considered valid if it can withstand it to ensure an objective interpretation. "climate change" science on the other hand is being shielded from any type of criticism. If it was actually valid, that would not be necessary. If you're interested and haven't seen this before, here is an article that contains a 4 minute video (in the middle of the page) that breakdown why that 97% study was bogus (https://climatism.wordpress.com/tag/consensus/). Ironically, the link it to youtube yet when I tried to search for something similar in Youtube, I found only videos affirming the bogus 97% number. Big Tech is all political now, you will never find what you're looking for it it's an alternative point of view of argument.
The issues in Science you describe are honest human mistakes, but we are beyond that. The mainstream media and establishments have declared themselves the arbiters of Science and now if they want the populous to do something but the populous resist, they just mindlessly say "follow the science" which itself is actually meaningless statement. Science is impartial. It takes not sides and can lead you anywhere, both bad and good. Furthermore, if there was science to follow (assuming that is where you want to go), they would be able to provide you with the data to back it up. In order to be repeatable, a scientific experiment has to be transparent and well documented. And yet somehow they never provide any data or proof that what they are saying is true. That is fundamentally unscientific. Pfizer never wanted to release any of their clinical trials. When they were forced to release data, it was found to be really poorly done and had inconsistencies that point to parts of it (at least) being faked.
As for scientific consensus, that is not a thing. The data and experimental results should speak for themselves. If you're having to point to scientific consensus instead of real data and results, you're clearly trying to subvert science, not uphold it's principals. You mentioned Alfred Wegener who was not believed due to scientific consensus but ended up being correct in the end. However, there are many more examples of this. My favorite is of Ignaz Semmelweis. He experimentally showed that using antiseptic procedures saved lives. They ignored him despite his unambiguous data. They ended up throwing him in an insane asylum where he died soon after. And they didn't (or at least should not have) had any motive to disbelieve him. Now you take something like COVID and climate change where scientists are paid to believe in the lies they propagate (COVID - Paid to administer the vax, Climate Change - Lost of government grants for climate science, if it stops being a threat these guys would lose their jobs).
I will end on the last and most modern method to fake science. Computer models. For example, in Ontario, Canada during the scamdemic, they had 3 allegedly independent models showing what would happen due to the virus which they used to justify their authoritarian response. It should come as no surprise (if you know how these people operate) that all 3 supposedly independent models vastly over-estimated the number of deaths and hospitalizations when compared to what ended up happening. It makes it quiet clear that none of these models were actually independent and they were just tuned to produce the result they wanted so they could implement the measure they wanted. The fundamental problem is that these models are so complex and have so many variables and with most being chaotic (very sensitive to initial conditions) that you can create a plausibly tuned model with any results. That makes these models unfalsifiable (because you can always go back and "fix" them to fit the data coming in) and fundamentally unscientific (if you can't create an experiment to prove something false, it is unscientific).
And that is what "climate change" is based on. Models that keep predicting disasters and keep being wrong. When they are wrong, they fix them to fit the new data with the model still predicting disaster in the future, to keep the narrative going and to keep the so-called scientists creating these garbage models well funded. Their latest name change is also clever. It's now called "climate change". Might as well re-name it to "the weather". Also, the 97% so-called consensus they beat us over the head is based on a really un-scientific study. For example, the study was based on a survey they conducted (they chose who to survey, that in itself is a problem). If a scientists answered that he believes that mankind likely does affect the climate but not necessarily in a critical way, they were added to the 97% which was then sold as 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is an existential threat. There was a youtube video that did a really good job of dismantling all the issues with that study however I can no longer find (either taken down or suppressed). In fact, Youtube has done a really good job of making sure you will never find alternate view points on climate change. I just tried to search for some and they were all supressed. That is also unscientific, scientific data is supposed to be open to scrutiny and should only be considered valid if it can withstand it to ensure an objective interpretation. "climate change" science on the other hand is being shielded from any type of criticism. If it was actually valid, that would not be necessary. If you're interested and haven't seen this before, here is an article that contains a 4 minute video (in the middle of the page) that breakdown why that 97% study was bogus (https://climatism.wordpress.com/tag/consensus/). Ironically, the link it to youtube yet when I tried to search for something similar in Youtube, I found only videos affirming the bogus 97% number. Big Tech is all political now, you will never find what you're looking for it it's an alternative point of view of argument.