Replaced might be the wrong word. I fully understand the usefulness of using the Newtonian model at non-relativistic speeds. It's a good enough approximation.

Replaced might be the wrong word. I fully understand the usefulness of using the Newtonian model at non-relativistic speeds. It's a good enough approximation. Regardless, relativity gets you basically the same results at those speeds (assuming flat spacetime and all that jazz). It fully supersedes Newtonian physics in terms of accuracy and better describes our world. Newtonian physics is not "wrong", it's just slightly less correct. My argument is not about the cause of climate change being humans. I believe that to be true, or at least closer to truth than any previous understanding we had about the climate... but that's not my point. My point is that there is precedence in science where 99% of scientists were wrong, or better said "more wrong" than today. Yet, there was still a path to get closer to the truth over time. I have NO problem with 99% or 100% of scientists being in agreement, because we have proved over our history that we are capable to course correct in this field. There are countless other examples of cours correction in history, Galileo and Darwin, and as you mentioned quantum physics to name a few. Relativity was just the first example that came to mind.