You have missed my point entirely. Again.
Evolution is a Theory and that means that it almost certainly a fact. It can be changed and adapted as new stuff is discovered. However, even before the perfect understanding of why it works, it can be used to predict and make verifiably accurate statements of the condition of things that it affects and are affected by it. Evolution includes biology, genetics, medicine and every generational change of any species ever evolved. This is pretty complex. It involves literally millions of interactions. They can all be explained, predicted and anticipated by the Theory of Evolution.
Does AGW Science do this? Let's check:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
Nope, missed it on this one.
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
Let's see, what does "anthropogenic" mean... There's the activities of man and then there is... well you probably have guess this one. Missed again.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
The predictions of AGW Science are notable only because the are ALWAYS wrong. This really quite amazing. An unblemished record of failure. Missed on this one, too.
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
The Name of this tripe pretty well precludes any adaptation. The A part of AGW assigns the cause and did so before the case was closed. Really, before the case was opened. Adaptation away from being Anthropogenic pretty well destroys the entire discipline. Missed again.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
Let's see... Climate always has changed and it's changing again. The evidence needs to support a radical departure from previous climate changes and that is impossible since our planet's climate has at various times been pretty dynamic. Missed again.
The moral of the story is that the politicians started out with a cause and told the scientists they would give them a whole big pile o' cash to do research on it.
They took the cash. They are doing the research.