What I see is a paradigm difference between the theory of evolution and anthropogenic global warming on the one hand - and theories from any of the hard sciences, e.g. physics, chemistry - on the other hand.
More specifically, in the hard sciences the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The more a theory survives attempts to falsify it, the more confident we can be that the theory is reliable.
Conversely, ToE and AGW - like most if not all of the soft sciences (anthropology, archeology, Egyptology) begin with a master theory or blueprint into which observations are fit. Inconvenient information - observations that do fit - are discredited or obscured from public view.
For them the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But far worse than that, when scientists dare to challenge the blueprint theory - instead of being applauded for their efforts as they would be in physics and chemistry - they are ridiculed, black-balled, discredited. Essentially they are ruined for daring to challenge the paradigm (Stein's 'Expelled' and current news on AGW.)
They are also notable for lawsuits, political activism and other unseemly behavior as if needed to shore up the theory against further scrutiny.
Indeed, the theories have more in common with theological dogma than hard science.
Using lawsuits as a metric? Wow.
One word: "Deniers..."
(Genuine physical science has no need of it...);