It is true, for example, that no one yet has come up with irrefutable evidence that math works.
Allow me to illustrate this:
Math is a theory based off of the idea that given a concept which we label as "1" and given a concept which we label as "2," 1+1 = 2.
This is the founding assumption of all mathematics
Once this basic assumption is given, then it naturally follows that 1+2 is another, different concept, one we can call anything we want but for clarity's sake we'll refer to as "3"
And then from this base we derive more and more complex concepts, all the way up to an infinite possibility of numbers in existence and ways to process and manipulate them. From 1+1 = 2, given enough time one can derive calculus and statistical analysis and computer-based logic systems.
However, this is all predicated on the assumption that 1+1 = 2 - which you cannot prove - you must take it as a given.
Therefore, you could invalidate any sort of evidence by demanding irrefutable proof - such things don't really exist.
Similarly, even if you don't think climate change exists, demanding irrefutable proof would make the entire debate pointless. How about I demand irrefutable proof that climate change -doesn't- exist? What now? We remain at an impasse and nothing at all progresses. Making a proper argument requires more than just reciting the flaws of the other person's position: you need to offer an alternative conclusion that is more reasonable, and let other people poke holes in that in turn.
Demanding irrefutable evidence is an inherently flawed argumentative position, one used primarily by politicians who don't have anything solid to offer but want to seem like they're contributing to the debate anyway.