You're really broadly generalizing though. Denying one controversial subject doesn't mean someone denies all science.
Skepticism is a healthy attribute, it indicates critical thinking, and an open mind.
I have no problem with evolution or Darwin whatsoever, believe solar power will be a fantastic resource when it matures, would like to eventually see an end to use of fossil fuels as soon as it becomes economically feasible to do so, am skeptical of religion (IMO religion is conveniently pre-packaged cereal box spirituality /philosophy at best); and think creationism is a fairy tale; but whereas AGW is concerned, I'm skeptical (but open minded) because of all the politics and hypocrisy that surrounds it. Al Gore and friends drone on and on about the dangers of carbon dioxide and man's apocalyptic effect on the planet, then all go fly their fuel-hog private personal jets to a summit to discuss it. Same is true of Gore's personal practices (i.e. his house), he seems very unconcerned in practice about those things which he champions in print or video. Such a strong proponent is expected to lead by example. The UN says AGW is critical to address, yet China hasn't had to abide by any accords, being probably the worst pollution offender currently on the planet.
Additionally, all climate and weather forecasts, whether next weekend or 100 years from now, despite the differences, are based on computer models, which are far from infallible. For these reasons, I'm still skeptical; however, I'm not unable to be swayed, given further evidence that isn't dressed up with carbon taxes and other political aspects; additionally, it sure would help if all the celebrities endorsing the tenant of AGW actually practiced what they preached.
Science is a process, a living, dynamic, self-correcting process. It must never be wielded as dogma.