Which is not what they’re saying. Please read
The Discovery of Global Warming for an excellent introduction, which points out the phsysics. It does tend to stint on the biological confirmations of the models, though. Also, please read realclimate.org.

“Crucial to that matter, it seems, is an ability to separate the scientific method from politics.”

The whole strategy of denialists is precisely to use politics to do what they failed to do in science.

That would be “The model is that there is no model. ” model?

Consider it from the basic dichotomy of bottom up process vs. top down structure;
Any organizational unit, be it an organism, corporation, theory, etc. must have some unifying focus in order to exist, but that definition sets limits and therefore it cannot also be infinite in its application.
What would happen if two realities which operated under different physical laws were to meet. In a sense, the same thing that happens when there is any conflict, be it between two bio-systems or two galaxies. There would be a mash-up and what emerged would be a new system forming out of the innumerable interactions. It wouldn’t have the same features as either of the originals, though there would be complexities that managed to carry over in diverse forms, whether organic or mineral. Say the Big Bang was caused by such a collision of two such realities. The set of physical laws which emerged wouldn’t be completely reducible back to some basic theory without knowing the laws of both preceding realities.
It is that intermingling that is a function of the bottom up process and any specific unit within it cannot be completely understand in isolation.

Since an objective perspective is an oxymoron, any inquiry is inherently subjective to begin with. Added to that, the process of inducing a general theory from a collection of data is inherently reductionistic. So it would seem problematic to assume that one might draw particularly objective conclusions from a particular study. This is mitigated by multiplying the fields of inquiry and finding which patterns are most prevalent.
From my limited experience and knowledge, it would seem one of the most basic patterns is of opposing forces in motion relative to one another, be it electricity or football, politics or geophysics. So is nature some dualistic construct, or is there a fundamental physicality and if we just keep smacking particles into one another, we will eventually find it. Or are we missing some larger point?

So what you’re saying is that theory is necessarily based on objectives, than objectivity?
I suppose then that those who do base their studies on pure objectivity are taking a long walk off a short board.

That’s not the point. You don’t have to explain things in terms of the most fundamental laws we know to at least have some explanation. For example, eventually we may hope to understand the operation of the human brain in terms of the activity of its basic components: neurons. There are many neuroscientists today working on this very problem, and it’s a good goal to have.

We can then understand the operation of individual neurons based on the chemistry of their components. We can understand the chemistry of their components in terms of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. We can understand non-relativistic quantum mechanics in terms of quantum field theory. And, some day, we may understand quantum field theory in terms of some more fundamental theory.

Either way, you don’t have to describe everything by breaking it down to its most fundamental components. There are ways of simplifying the problem by breaking it up into pieces.