Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a "Theory", but more precisely, it is a model based on either varying or specific data points. Where evolution has foundational principles that can be tested and repeated or observed, AGW really does not. It may not sound like a significant difference, in point of fact it is and is why there has been push-back in the traditional sciences field from hundreds if not thousand of well-respected and published physical scientists.
Contrary to what the UN, Al Gore or others have said, and what's been repeated ad nauseum by the MSM, AGW is not settled science. Evolution however, is in a completely different category. And to compare the two is completely disingenuous.
As for your line that "science is mostly junk", you should think about that when you turn on your lights in the morning, or read this on your computer monitor, or travel to work in your car or train. These are all modern-day conveniences that have been brought to us by "junk scientist" with names like Edison, Bell, Einstein and Whitney.
Without science, man would still be living in caves, thinking the world was flat while staring at the moon which was made of cheese.
A lot of people make a distinction between technology and science. “Technologists like Edison and the Wright Brothers only got somewhere when they started ignoring the scientists.” and so forth.
There are significant comparisons between the two because evolution refuses to answer questions that are gaping holes within its theory and a lot of its supporting material is viewed subjectively (with gross assumptions). The two are actually quite similar. We can go into it if you’d like.