^^^ How long would you think it takes to acquire global data that are useful for evaluating global phenomena?

Should scientists NOT develop working hypotheses while gathering more data?

Take for example, evolution. Few scientists doubt that organic evolution is real. But constraints on collecting unambiguous, irrefutable data will likely result in logical ambiguities remaining in the theory. Perhaps forever probably not. Should the theory of evolution not be taught? Should scientists not use it as a framework for understanding life because it is not irrefutably proven to be true in all instances?

Let's say that the scientists eventually gather sufficient data to disprove the human cause of global warming. Does that mean the scientists wasted time and money gathering data?

We're all taxpayers and citizens of some country or other. We are the folks who ultimately pay for these things. Is it a waste of money? Who decides which projects are a waste of money?

B