I too am an analytical thinker. I was born and raised in a very devout and loving and sincere family of catholics. My folks still go to Mass every day, they're both highly intelligent, well educated and sane. My pa was the equivalent of the USA's surgeon general, so not a fool and well versed in politics. I follow him and am also not inexperienced in the politics.
But I must address your response.
A belief system is not an excuse for admitting ignorance. Your use of the Christian creation story (it's no longer a myth) as an answer to the big why question is irrelevant.
Left-leaning thinkers do not dominate academia, academia dominates left-leaning thought. Think on this. In the realm of human endeavour recognised and self-avowed as pursuant of wisdom (philosophy, all else follows) practiitoners are _forced_ to continually re-evaluate their thought and their assumptions in the face of evidence and the often harsh criticism of their peers. That's how it works so well. Left-leaning thinkers, those who do not think the old ways are necessarily the best and are willing to embrace new thought and deed to improve the lot of not only themselves but their neighbours, are pretty much required to be influenced by academia.
As part of the scientific process there is a requirment that all points of view be considered when facing the unknown. Sometimes extreme ideas take hold as "correct". Relativity is one such. However it must be admitted that in still new fields such as environmental science there is still a need for outliers of opinion and model generation. This stuff is new. The up-down-side of the benefits of continuing academic development is that we can all share in this great debate, sadly mediated by the extremist tendecies of the media. Hence the silly arguments. I beg you read more on the subject of human-influenced climate change, for the scientific consensus, even in this early stage, is clear, well reasoned, and amply justified by the evidence. It is not utterly incontrovertible, but it is accurate.
Your last paragraph is both beautiful and sad. You speak of scientists as the most unfeeling of engineers and they are not. Every scientist I've ever met, and I've met a few, are deeply sincere, compassionate, context-aware people, humble in their inability to effect the changes.
"I think it's too easy for scientific based public policy makers to forget that and consequently dehumanize the problems they are trying to solve."
I beg you study Science. Please. Don't give up your Catholicism, as you rightly state it is open-minded with regard to the role of Science and is a model of its kind as such. Catholicism offers much more than generosity of thought, a clarity of ethics (sadly unpracticed), a depth of history. Catholicism holds a special place as a theistic belief system of great utility. But stop claiming Science is inhumane, it ain't. Stop claiming caution, skepticism, and efficiency as conservative, they're scientific. Stop seeing Science and scientists and science users as contrary and wasteful and remote. We're quite the reverse. And we're not liberal or conservative, we're honest.