Is the same scientific techniques used to support evolution or global warming?

They are different sciences, so it depends on what you mean by scientific techniques.

All sciences are advanced by scientists proposing a theory which generates specific hypotheses which are then tested in various ways. The research that tests the hypotheses is published in scientific journals for other scientists to review. Over time, some hypotheses are proved wrong or explained in some other way. Others continue to be supported. Generally, the theory never gets fully proved, but alternatives become proved wrong and eliminated. As certain hypotheses are proved wrong, sometimes entire variations of the theory are rejected -- or the entire theory can be rejected. Sometimes an alternative theory can exist and neither can be disproved for a long time. Eventually, the best explanation for all observations is found. The questions then become finer, there is always more to learn. In this way, advancing all sciences is similar.

The precise sciences and tests are very different between climate and human origins. There is some overlap in the archeological and geological areas, but otherwise are very different. Climatology is very physics-driven, the search for human origins involves much more biology.

All science are related. Physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson likes to point out that major advances in our understanding of climate came from the search for the cause of the decline of dinosaurs. Science advance together and all are advancing along with the developing power of computers.

They're both subject to peer review, so I suppose producing tests for others to repeat could be considered a technique.

They're different areas of science though - evolution is biology (although can be applied elsewhere), and global warming is climatology.

In that both can be modeled mathematically, must conform to the rest of known science, and must agree with real-world evidence, yes.

There are no 'scientific techniques' used in either of the subjects. In both cases the 'scientists' go around looking for supportive facts to back them up. When they think they have one, they get great publicity. Then when they are proven wrong, they either deny it or ignore it. Yet these men are considered heroes by the proponents.

A good example is a man named Leakey, who spent a whole lifetime searching for the missing link. He came up with zero, zip, nada. Yet he is admired by the proponents of evolution for his devotion.

How different it is with real scientists who are noted for their achievements rather than their devotion.

Since both are facts, probably, or are you a moronic denier of evolution as well. FULL HOUSE OF FAIL