In answer to your first question, yes, and yes. Quite apart from experiments that have been conducted since the late 19th century proving their existence, electrons have been imaged and filmed using quantum microscopes since 2008. https://phys.org/news/2008-02-electron.html

In answer to your second point, science is a quest for knowledge. There is risk associated with every step into the unknown. While we might do our best to anticipate and avoid risks in the advancement of science, some problems develop over such a long period,  that their causes are not obvious to start with.

Example: Greenhouse gases have been increasing since the early 19th century - the start of the industrial revolution. This has been measured through ice cores https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/ but not until this century. It has taken decades of complex analysis of these and other phenomenon to prove humanity's impact on the environment. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/discovery-of-global-warming/

Here is a medical example - Lung cancer went from being a rarity to a global epidemic  in the late 19th century. But it wasn't until the 1940's, (after extensive medical research) that the cause was confirmed as being directly linked to smoking. This may be a no-brainer now, but there was a complete ignorance about the relationship between cancer and tobacco back then. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345227

Your final comment is a pointless one to make, considering that risks are integral to advancing science and technology. If we didn't take risks and learn lessons from their consequences, we would all still be sitting in caves wearing animal furs (taken from animals we'd probably already hunted to near extinction) and making flint spears.

The industrial revolution brought about changes for the better - for example, cheaper and more accessible goods, labour saving inventions, electronic communication, better medicine etc. but affecting climate globally was a byproduct that would not become apparent for many decades.

If recent science hadn't shown us that climate change and environmental destruction was the result of the technologies of the 19th and 20th centuries, we might never have developed new technologies for harnessing clean and renewable energies and fuels, recycling our waste or developing electric and hybrid powered vehicles. We might never have developed methods to help balance and renew the planet's resources.

Just as proof of a link between tobacco and lung cancer eventually changed our views on smoking, proof of a link between human activities and the environment is now triggering a change in the way we value our environment, forcing us to learn how to look after it.

You don't get it.  There would not be a male sexual harasser. You are still focusing on a binary, a dichotomous view where only certain people have empathy and others do not.

Then you are missing the entire point and are building a straw man debate that is inconsequential to what was being discussed.

Science is simply the understanding of the natural world as it exists around us and testing that through provable hypothesis/experiment. Science doesn't "create" anything in that respect, it's just the world as it is. Whether you like those answers or not is irrelevant. 

If you're going to really say you meant "technology" ... well we probably don't exist as a species without technology. Hand made tools, spears, etc. kept our ancestors alive and able to eat food and not die out, that is human technology and it's just grown from there (ie: the wheel). If humans didn't have the ingenuity to build simple tools at minimum we probably die as a species in the ice age most likely, long before any modern religion was created. 

I guess if you don't like that ... go back to living in a nomadic life style in a cave, hunting for food with your bare hands? Since farming/food growth is also human science/technology. Having hot water in your home, heat, a toilet to crap on ... I mean think about how upside down your life would turn if one of those pieces of technology wasn't available to you even for a week. 

Capitalism is worst threat to humanity.

I think you're considering two very different things in the same way which is a mistake.

Religion is ignorance and so whatever actions are made in the name of it are always the result of ignorance regardless of the action being good or bad. You can decide you don't want to kill anyone cause you believe there is a hell and you will go there if you kill people so in this case ignorance pushes you to do good or you can decide that anyone not worshiping your God is worthless of life and so it is your duty to kill every one that does not agree with your religious views and in this case ignorance pushes you to do something bad.

Science or knowledge on the other hand is the pursue of objective truth and it does not in and of itself possess any sort of moral judgement. Scientists don't pursue knowledge in order to impose a philosophy that can be described as good or evil to anyone. They pursue knowledge because they want to know what the universe is all about, why we are here and their wish is to be able to understand the universe through disciplines such as mathematics, biology, astrophysics etc. The people who wish to pass judgement over others by using science are rarely if EVER scientists themselves. The guy that decides to put a bomb (created thanks to science) in order to kill people he considers bad or unworthy, well that guy is NOT a scientist and he usually does not give a damn about science itself, he ONLY uses (and abuses) the knowledge humans have obtained through science in order to pass judgement and kill people he considers to be unworthy, usually unworthy of his RELIGIOUS beliefs.

In short, religious people who kill, do so in the name of religion but I have never heard of a scientists using science to kill people who don't dedicate themselves to science, never heard a scientist say: All who don't love and pursue science must die or are unworthy of living or anything like that.

So long story short, Religion is intrinsically speaking a threat to mankind, a threat of ignorance and everything that ignorance implies whereas science intrinsically speaking is what can save mankind. Science is never a threat to humans, it's ignorance that is the threat. A wise person like Einstein while responsible for the knowledge behind nuclear weapons, certainly never would use nuclear weapons if he was in charge. The one using those weapons is either politically or religiously motivated but NEVER scientifically motivated.

"The collapse of Mesopotamia is partly attributed to ignorance about irrigation. They basically poisoned their own fields by letting the mineral salts build up in the top layer of the soil. Humans are very capable of wiping themselves out. 

Processes we developed have yielded far better results in sustaining farm land than without science."

"A lot of extinctions have resulted from going about our ways without properly understanding how things work. Like spreading diseases, introducing plants and wildlife into new areas that can't cope with it. Over fishing, is that caused by science making fishing more efficient or by ignorance or willfully ignoring the impact on the ecosystem."

as a result of technological advancement without understanding the consequences... so you're pretty much pushing the science is more dangerous side

you have to acknowledge that this is a constant problem for mankind, we never know completely what the consequences of adopting new technology will be

"However religion is still perfectly fine to have you reproduce like rabbits. Over population is the biggest problem. Having 1 less kid will save the environment more than anything else you can possibly do."

i could argue that overpopulation occurs because science has increased the standard of living for humans, stopping us from falling to the causes that would naturally keep our population in check

i'd also argue that its not necessarily our population size that is the issue but how we live as a result of our use of technology 

Would you rather go back to the time of the small pox, bubonic plague, spanish flu etc to keep the population in check?

And get rid of the internet, cars, central air, guaranteed food/water supply and go back to living as hunters/gatherers. Not that that's sustainable with 7 billion people. It's science that proposes solutions for more sustainable living, it's belief or rather disbelief in science that stops people listening... Money >>>> Science and religion. The greed for money is the biggest threat to humanity.