Depends on which conservatives or liberals you're talking about. Case in point: "evolutionism" is questioned by many conservatives, but accepted by many other conservatives, not only because they feel compelled to accept the scientific consensus, but because it actually supports conservative ideology in key respects (just check out Steve Sailer's blog, for one). For example, most liberals and leftists still assume the "Standard Social Science Model" when formulating public policy. This model treats human nature as a "blank slate", i.e. all our supposedly "natural" tendencies and predilections, such as "gender roles", are supposedly the product of our environment alone, and therefore completely dependent on arbitrary cultural differences. Evolutionary psychologists, on the other hand, recognize that there are universal tendencies in cultural gender roles, which they attribute to a common biological inheritance, which can be explained in terms of Darwinian natural selection. It's ironic that so many liberals use evolution to bash conservatives, when in fact many of the conclusions of evolutionary biology contradict the anthropological assumptions of leftist ideology.
I would venture that the same might hold of the global warming "debate". As far as I know, climatology is akin to biology, in that the actual professional consensus has acknowledged a significant man-made cause of current global warming for some time now. Political ideology has kept the scientific opposition alive, but this is scientifically speaking hardly more important than the political backing given to "dissenters" from Darwinism. Without this political backing, would there even be a scientific opposition at all?
If you want a third example, just consider the scientists that the tobacco industry has recruited over the decades to dispute the findings that show the harm caused by smoking. Are they a credible scientific "alternative" to the consensus of the medical establishment concerning the harm of tobacco smoke?