That's all fine and dandy, but that wasn't the story just a few years ago. Back then there were some Russians scientists, as I recall, that predicted the solar cycle would prevail over anything else. They were called "deniers"
Without falsifiability there is no science. This same situation -- making the narrative fit the data instead of changing hypotheses -- is what led to Karl Popper's beautiful critique of Marxism (which also claimed to be scientific and also just changed the narrative once facts didn't match up with original forecasts)
Scientific-sounding speculation or scientific consensus is not the same as science. If all you have is speculation, you can change that willy-nilly, whereas if you had a hypothesis, a change would require a truly new way of looking at things.
Without falsifiability, you're never wrong -- you just keep changing your story. And if you're never wrong because you creatively adapt your story to meet changing conditions, you don't have science, you have religion.