Act first. Think later. What could possibly go wrong?
OMG There's a comet hurtling toward the Earth. Let's spend more money to model the collision! Will insects survive or just single-celled life? Let's spend millions on computer simulations of the collision itself, answering important questions about geology and previous extinction level events. Let's figure out precisely how bad it will be.
vs
OMG There's a comet hurtling toward the Earth. Let's spend some money developing a plan to mitigate the risk - move the comet out of the way, or destroy it, or in the worst case, prepare an "ark" so that humans can survive, or at least launch some of our most precious info into space (or on the moon) so that a future alien civilization will at least know we existed.
#
Obviously, the first case has no merit.
The frustration you're feeling is a side-effect of reality. Complex problems are complex.
>>move the comet out of the way, or destroy it, or in the worst case, prepare an "ark" so that humans can survive"
Those are screenwriting scenarios
>>answering important questions about geology and previous extinction level events. Let's figure out precisely how bad it will be.
The answers to those questions have allowed governments to, in as far as is realistically possible, have scenarios and structures in place, for actual world-wide calamity events.
>>Try reading.
You make some highly unorthodox points. There's nothing wrong with that in itself; in fact, it's welcomed. But when people respond to those points and indicate they have no merit (like how research scientists are in it for their own enrichment), being rude and dismissive is not going to convince anyone you're right; quite the contrary.