I understand Justin's reply, and for lots of purposes I think I might agree with it to some extent. However, I think there are problems which need to be thought about some more. 

His categorical assertion/assumption that the study of blame has no place in science is just that, an assertion.

Were one of the 'causes' contributing to global warming and the rapid deterioration of the biosphere by 2100 were  found to be the lobbying and bullying of powerful governments by even more powerful economic interests, and their domination of the media sphere, then the thinking and the actions, the unthinking and the inactions, of powerful economic interests, of powerful governments, and the media sphere would be significant 'contributory causes' to the set of ecological consequences,  whatever else is true.

To say that the confirmation of the above 'scientific realist hypothesis' has nothing to do with blame, is a further step that one can take, if one wants, or not take.

The notion of 'blame for action' depends upon the notion of people being morally responsible for their action, and this can either be asserted or denied in principle, or it can be further explored in (critical realist) research.

To solve the difficult problem of being uncertain about people's moral responsibility for their action in any given case by simply asserting or denying it as a matter of ontological or epistemological principle, is escapism and profoundly unhelpful (however attractive it is to dodge the problem, and it's very attractive!).

Alternatively.

We have a further research question which is: how would a scientific critical realism do research into the 'moral responsibility of individuals, corporations, and states'or indeed just anyone example of  just one of them?

So.

If you are an existentialist of Sartre's school, then no research is needed. All people all the time are always morally responsible for their actions, whatever alibis they themselves or scientific auxiliaries provide to explain away their 'bad faith'. No problem.

If you are a  philosophical determinist, then no research is needed. The chain of sufficient cause and effect going back up to and beyond the beginning of the universe means that no people at any time are morally responsible for their actions, whatever impulses they or anybody else has to engage in moral reflection or assessment of moral blame or praise. 

No problem.

To me the question remains, and remains an at least partly 'scientific' one,:

how would a scientific critical realism do research into the 'moral responsibility of individuals, corporations, and states'or indeed just anyone example of  just one of them?