Wow - great post Blacknad. Yes a kicking might be headed your way. Not from me though.

I think the scientific method can be objective and usually is, I just don't think science is always objective. But I think the loss of objectivity has more to do with political decisions being made while the science is still ongoing.

You bring up climate change as an example. I truly do think this has left the science field entirely, and is almost a wholly political discussion now. Why? Because politicians are making decisions based on it. Canada just announced we'll be banning incandescent light bulbs by 2012 (why bother worrying about the mercury in the fluorescent ones). We have the IPCC allowing bureaucrats to wordsmith the final documents. People are ostracized for asking questions on the assumptions surrounding the CO2/temperature relationship, or even the basic question of how average global temperatures are estimated.

When things like this are occurring, it's evidence to me that the scientific method has left the building. Once the politicos start using the science in their election platforms, the topic becomes politicized, and objectivity is a thing of the past.

So to sum up - the scientific method can be objective, if the topic at hand is far enough removed from the political process.

Although there's always the bias introduced by the never-ending quest for funding dollars......