> I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. I...don't think so? Newton's l

> I understand the historical context of laws, my point was they are fundamental and we can believe them as fundamental truths. I...don't think so? Newton's laws are not fundamental; they are consequences of deeper ideas like conservation of momentum, and they're just rough observations elaborated on by relativity. Newton's law of gravity is not fundamental, see general relativity. Ohm's law is not fundamental, it's a consequence of Maxwell's laws, which themselves are not fundamental. And so on. > But those truths are layered That's true! But the existence of ever-deeper layers doesn't mean that the higher-level layers aren't "more or less settled". The possible existence of a deeper truth about roundness doesn't mean that we can't tell flat-earthers they're wrong. So too about climate science. It seems you are misinformed about science in general and climate science specifically and angry that someone with authority is telling you that you're wrong. That's a shitty feeling.