An interview between Stefan Molyneux (one of the favorite libertarian bloggers) and The Climate Skeptic Warren Meyer:

Though I disagree with some of the assertions near the end of the interview, I think these two do a pretty good job at illustrating the problems with believing there is "consensus" on climate change and the rush to implement unsound policy.

If you're into solar like I am, you've no doubt run across those "Build Your Own Solar Panels for Free" (or cheap) schemes on the internet. Knowing a little about the subject. I looked into it and most of what you see is some cat on the side of the interstate in California, at a DOT solar sign charger, proclaiming in an accent "This is the solar panels I built for my vacation house for only $100".

No there's still no free lunch:

Buying the individual cells separately off places like eBay is easy and cheap. But you know nothing about the cell's output, if they're rejects, seconds, etc. Wiring them together is still fairly easy. But the real issue with any panel is longevity. Commercial panels currently last 25-40 years. Do you think you can cobble up some frame in your garage that will last that long, outside, through heat, cold, and storms? DIY is fine for a small 10-20 watt panel to use mobile. But a real system of any size (even 100w) is best bought. You can still aim to be economical. 

Here's the most economical panels I've found:
Kaneka GSA60 - 48v nominial, 60 watt - $1.40 / watt!

They are amorphous so the voltage output can be pretty high. For a small system, a MPPT controller like the BZ MPPT250HV would be perfect (250w) or the MPPT500HV (500w). Combined with (4) 12v deep cycle batteries in series and an inverter.

These together and you could have 250w up and running for about $4.82 / watt. That's cheaper than some panels just themselves. Solar systems typically run $8-10 / watt installed. Don't be fooled by sales pitches on the internet. Solar is still fairly expensive per watt but if you do your homework you can still make economical decisions.

Q: Are you really an environmentalist? Or is this just another attempt by the right to co-opt liberal causes?

A: No, I am not a "conservative" in the mainstream sense. Actually, I am a disaffected liberal that woke up and smelled the logic. I am very ecologically minded. More so than the majority of westerners. I can explain in detail how a Prius works. I built an electric car that went 70mph+ and 70miles+ in 1995. I am trained in solar design. I promote green building professionally. I don't eat animals partly because it is less efficient than eating plants directly (combined with all the other gross environmental negligence of the food industry). My house is never above 65 degrees in the winter or below 80 degrees in the summer. Betcha Al Gore won't compare his carbon footprint to mine! The point here isn't to toot my own horn. That's the reason I haven't posted the majority of this kind of information before. But it is important to keep in mind that my posts generally present information that you can't be reactive to or else you won't get the point.

So why have I been on an somewhat anti AGW kick lately? All this business about Global Warming. Because it is one of the greatest issues of our day and the decisions that will be made in regards to AGW are immense. Far more than the current health care overhaul. Also because, I feel offended as an environmentalist that we have had the vegan wool pulled over our eyes by elitists such as Gore. In the 70's the big scare was global cooling. Now we are being sold the opposite. 

Have humans caused a great environmental toll on the earth? Absolutely. But getting your agenda through lies, deceit, and control is absolutely illegitimate. Scaring people into action, when that action will benefit the political elite and industry leaders (read highest income class) and hurt the lowest economic classes the most, is not acceptable. 

ITS NO DIFFERENT TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING THAN IT WAS FOR THE BUSH PRESIDENCY TO MISREPRESENT (IE LIE) ABOUT WMD AS THE BASIS OF INVADING IRAQ

You can't have it both ways. If you are liberal you can't call Bush "Hitler" when your party does the same misleading (and war mongering) once it gets into power. Don't you see the problem here? Both major "political camps" are responsible for the same misgivings, just on different topics.

Is CO2 a pollutant? NO, it is a natural component of the atmosphere. You breathe it out every couple of seconds (catabolism is internal combustion just like an engine). Plants take it in as part of photosynthesis.

Would reducing greenhouse gases benefit the environment? Absolutely. But not because of warming reduction. Because it is a major metric of energy consumption (really conversion) with plenty of secondary issues such as NOx, SOx, particulates, land destruction, water pollution, etc... But selling reduction because the science "is settled" on warming is LIEING.

You don't have to listen to Rush Limbaugh, oil companies, religious fanatics, or all the people you think you hate to get access to this information. There is plenty of information and dissenting views presented by climatologists and other scientists. As well as people like you and me. Just because they're not politicians or some actor (well that's basically the same thing) doesn't mean they are misleading you. In fact, I would question why Al Gore (what's his science back ground?) is believed more than dissenting climatologists? Al Gore would profit from CO2 reduction policy. I won't...

In the 70's the scare was Global cooling. Now it's warming? Wait what just happened?

Is the earth warming? Yes, but it was warming before the IPCC claims that CO2 became a factor (1950's?). We've been coming out of a mini ice age for a couple hundred years.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes, but its presence only accounts for about 1 degree C of warming. The rest of the warming scare requires POSTIVE FEEDBACK to be present in the range of 10x the effect of CO2. Currently, only 10% of the warming scare numbers can be explained by science. The other 90% is conjecture. For all we know CO2 causes neutral or negative feedback. So what's the rush? Why do we always think we are on the verge of destruction? Why can't we keep investigating the issue, meanwhile more and more carbon neutral technology comes on line.

Why should we act so prematurely that we benefit those in power and those with the money? Or maybe that's the point...

Let's act with logic and an open mind to benefit all humankind (and the earth).

About 80 percent of stimulus money has gone directly to state governments, they say. Instead of being used to create new jobs, the bulk of the money has been used to save existing state government jobs -- teachers, law enforcement and others -- and for shoring up sagging state budgets.