What you need to understand is that creationists and global warming deniers don't think they're against science. Rather, in their minds, they're defending science from what they perceive to be a conspiracy of "Darwinists" and environmentalists.
This is the reason that science websites always have not just stray lunatics taking potshots at evolution-related articles in their comments, but routine visitors who follow the pages and still spew garbage when they see something about science their particular ideology disagrees with. They genuinely believe that their position is scientific and that fallacious arguments in favor of their beliefs are in fact valid. This is why they've tried to sneak intelligent design into high school: they don't think they're destroying science, they seriously belief that creationism represents a valid scientific argument and that science, being so powerful, needs the help of what they consider to be the fact of the religion.
And herein lies the problem: the belief that science is a collection of facts rather than a process.
If anyone here has taken a core science course at university (by that I mean something like General Physics for science and engineering majors, not Concepts of Physics for poets) you'll know they don't just sit you down and tell you "Well the big bang happened and that was how the universe got here, and that's a fact because science and here's a scientific paper proving it even though you don't have nearly the technical expertise to understand it, now be an atheist or fail the class". They don't even address the big bang until you reach advanced physics (usually right before or during modern physics when cosmology becomes appropriate) and when they do it's concerned with analysis, using mathematical techniques, of the state of the universe. That is the PROCESS of physics: learning the math used to analyze the universe. That the universe began its life in a rapid expansion from a point of extreme heat and density is a result of that process, not the basis of it.
A physicist is someone who uses math to analyze the universe, not just someone who can recite a litany of facts about why the big bang happened. This is why you'll occasionally see a scientist who says (or is having his quote warped out of context) that "science isn't concerned with facts". Science produces knowledge and facts, and it does so with processes. You need the knowledge, the facts, AND (most importantly) the ability to execute the processes in order to do science.
(I use physics in my example, as that is my own background, but it could also apply to any other area of science).
So as a result, you get people following these pages who are interested only in the facts, and you can't necessarily blame them for not having the ability or time to go earn a PhD and be able to scrutinize the gigabytes of raw experimental data. Popular science is important to keeping the public informed and interested, but the problem is that if you lack scientific training you have no defense against accidentally being exposed to pseudoscience and subsequently buying into it. So this is why there are plenty of people who do indeed "fucking love science" but still somehow manage to be creationists: they weren't able to properly apply rigorous analysis to something they read somewhere about crystal healing or "micro" vs "macro" evolution and came away from the unfortunate encounter with the pseudoscience with the belief that what they had seen was valid science.
