When I say the media narrative about climate change or the assumptions it is based on are “false”, I don’t mean it has been falsified by some transcendental condition or fact, determined by my superior judgment; I mean the ideas don’t make much sense as one tries to connect them with other related fields, facts, and perspectives. That alone doesn’t mean they must be false or wrong.
As Feyerabend used to point out, it is often the supposedly “disproven” theory which doesn’t fit the known facts, that ends up being the most important and revolutionary new truth that forces other fields to adapt to it. But with much of mainstream media science, the incoherence comes from the fact that we are dealing with politicized narratives based on narrow selections. In fact, in much of science these days, there is little attempt at taking the larger contexts into account. The consequence being: a lot of disconnected perspectives with very narrow and limited value. They may have sense within a limited range, but that limited range is not defined by a creative and eccentric innovation that defies common sense and potentially holds great value–as a novel idea or at least as an informative contrast, as many supposedly “wrong” or pseudo-scientific ideas do–but rather, their limited value and meaning is defined by their value to personal and political agendas both within the scientific profession and the larger political theater that depends more and more on scientific justification. Basically, so many bad ideas make a whole lot more sense as propaganda than they do as “truth”.