Are the manifold findings of climate science best synthesized by politicized committees like the IPCC, or by the talented individual mind?

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Urban Renaissance Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation, writing in the National Post, has recently completed a series of ten articles on leading scientists who are skeptical of the greenhouse effect as a cause of global warming. While I don't pretend to know the causes of climate change, I'm pretty sure that no one at present should be confident on the subject, given the paucity of our science. Thus, the series is a must read for those who suspect that the international consortia of experts and bureaucracies that rule much of our opinion are increasingly unable to interface with any reality other than a fantastic creation of their own tired rituals of institutional and professional self-justification as scientific resisters to the evils of free market society.

The first in the series, with the links to the other nine articles is here.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn gets in some licks on the "the [global warming] science is solid" crowd.

Technorati Tags: climate change