On highly polarizing science issues

I am cleaning the shelves of my old collected magazines, including Chemical and Engineering News for last half a year or so. Reading the Letters to the Editor combined with Editorial for those issues provides some interesting observation. Rudy Baum is a very interesting person, and his editorials, clearly expressing his personal views (with disclaimer, of course ), are still within the scope of the magazine. Several issues especially resonated with the readers, in both positive and negative way. His opinions on the global warming and teaching of intelligent design polarized the readers for months. It was very interesting to read some statements from otherwise highly educated and trained in science professionals.
In case of intelligent design, the most negative opinions were mixing the scientific theory, which is based on a number of experimentally verified hypothesis, and by default not 100% sure, as no scientific data is provides absolute solution; with a faith based statement, which cannot be verified in any other way as by, well, believing in it. I think the opinions I could accept, although not agree, were of those, who were recognizing the limitations of evolution theory and filling in the blanks with their religious beliefs. I think the intelligent design has its place in Sunday school, but in the classroom.
The human input to global warming is a bit different story. It is not a matter of belief any more, but a fight of a large number of scientific evidence, supporting both sides. And although I personally think that there is more data supporting the human induced global warming, it might be high time the skeptics understand one thing. The rate of climate changes are so high right now, that regardless if human activity contributes 1, 50 or 99%, if by changing our habits we can reduce it, we should, before it is too late and changes are turning tragic. And that has nothing to do with your political preferences.