Newtonian Physics is a fine model as long as the speeds are not relativistic. Relativity was not the "replacement" and Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not mesh at all.
If I am a Mechanical Engineer, I would not be applying Quantum Mechanics of Relativistic Theories. I would be applying classical theories.
> So has "humans cause climate change" gained trust over time, based on more and more evidence. It is the closest to truth we can be. It is perfectly plausible that a better theory may arise, but it's incredibly unlikely. We must accept it as fact until that time (which may happen centuries from now, or even never).
In the soviet union there was an idea of Lysenkoism was the accepted by it was politically expedient to do so. Those that didn't agree I would imagine had to leave the Soviet Union. In the same vain many people think that much of the agreement is politically motivated. I have no idea of how true that is. However telling people "well we all agree, shutup" will heighten suspicions not lower them.
That is an extreme example. However there was many times when many scientists all "agreed" because it was politically expedient or because other ideas were pushed out of the consensus due to various factors e.g. the Scablands is one such example:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/channel...
Telling me that 99% of all scientists agree doesn't mean much when there is plenty of times where scientists in the past all agreed on the wrong thing.
I definitely think the climate is changing, but I am wrong to be suspicious when I am just told "well everyone agrees and shutup"?
> Because unlike relativity vs Newtonian physivs, math is not enough to show the validity of the process.
Neither is it for Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or Newtonian physics. People have verified the theories through experimentation.
e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experim...
They flew an atomic clock around the world twice to prove special relativity.