The things you mention are either not 'completely wrong' (i.e. Newton's Laws, Kepler's Laws, the heliocentric model) or not based on multiple sources of evidence (the geocentric model, luminiferous aether).
I will absolutely grant that scientists for centuries have made prevailing wisdom out of untested hypotheses. I'm just pointing out that climate change is neither prevailing wisdom (of that kind) or an untested hypothesis.
I'm quite sure that there's a lot more to discover in climate change akin to how there was a lot more to discover after Newton described his laws of motion. That does not mean we should commit the Nirvana fallacy and disregard our current efforts as fruitless, untrue or unhelpful when they are the complete opposite.
Nobody is claiming that climate change is "completely wrong".
On the other hand, the claim that rising CO2 levels are responsible for a majority of the changes in the earth's temperature could be "completely wrong".
... and in what sense is "the sun is the center of the universe" not completely wrong?
> ... and in what sense is "the sun is the center of the universe" not completely wrong?
In a sense that there's no obvious preferred reference frame (and if you believe Einstein, there's none at all) for the universe, so you may as well pick up the sun to be (0, 0, 0).
Also, as long as you adjust for the observable evidence, the only difference between heliocentric and geocentric model is how much are you willing to complicate your maths. Those two descriptions can always be translated into one another.
This is really an important point many people miss about science, and well, about thinking itself. There are many equivalent ways to describe a given phenomena, taking into account all available evidence, and the model we pick as "official" is usually the simplest one.
> ... and in what sense is "the sun is the center of the universe" not completely wrong?
In the sense that you can make a lot of really accurate predictions about the motion of the planets, with a heliocentric model. For that matter, you can get a lot done proceeding from the assumption that the Earth is flat because, to a reasonable approximation, Earth is flat.
>Nobody is claiming that climate change is "completely wrong"
I think the fact that the climate is changing isn't what some people have a problem with. Of course it is changing, we see it happening and know about cases throughout history (the "Little Ice Age", the Medieval Warm Period). What people have a problem with is being told they have to do something about it.
I will absolutely grant that scientists for centuries have made prevailing wisdom out of untested hypotheses. I'm just pointing out that climate change is neither prevailing wisdom (of that kind) or an untested hypothesis.
I'm quite sure that there's a lot more to discover in climate change akin to how there was a lot more to discover after Newton described his laws of motion. That does not mean we should commit the Nirvana fallacy and disregard our current efforts as fruitless, untrue or unhelpful when they are the complete opposite.