NASA has this to say on the subject:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals [1] show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

That footnote says as follows:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

That's actually a stronger statement than the article makes -- the article merely says that there is consensus that global warming is happening, but the peer-reviewed literature is in nearly unanimous agreement that human activity takes a central role. This is about as strong a consensus as any theory (I use that term in the scientific sense) can have.

Even with all that, it's easier to overturn climate change than, say, quantum physics -- no particle accelerators necessary, just find that global average temperatures are falling while greenhouse gases are rising. Anecdotally, some deniers made bets against climatologists several years ago that the Earth would do just that...and are losing. For example: http://www.reuters.com/article/climatechange-bets-idUSL8N1541LL, https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=72

By the way, you cite Schrodinger's Cat as a theory that needed to be rewritten, when in fact it was originally a thought-experiment that Schrodinger hoped to use to show that quantum physics was wrong, and was himself proven wrong (i.e. quantum physics is quite well-supported experimentally, even though there is much philosophical debate over what it really means). It's not really true that quantum physics replaced or rewrote classical physics either. Newtonian physics is no less valid or useful than it was in Newton's day (maybe even more so, given the number of flying and orbiting objects we use these days); we've just found a few more terms in our models of reality.