Switch to solar and save $36.44/mo on avg ($0 installations available) - Click Here

Solar Power Rocks

Clear info on home solar power rebates, tax credits, and other benefits

The Profit of Climate Deniers and a Solar Power Experiment

Here at SolarPowerRocks.com, we’ve never claimed to be scientists or to have done research on global warming.  We’re just solar geeks, so we leave “science” up to these science guys and these other science guys, and these CIA smarty-pants who all seem to agree that there is real science and a national security threat from global warming.

Then there are those who just don’t want to believe anything that the majority of scientists say. In fact, we came across this list of the most egregious climate deniers, and we thought we’d share.  Interestingly, all of these Climate Deniers have a financial reason to deny that global warming is a serious issue. Go figure.

But even if you agree with the above Climate Deniers about global warming, always remember that there are other reasons to go solar for your home or business, including saving money and breathing.

Not sure you can afford solar power, even with all of the rebates and incentives these days? Tell you what. Why not do your own science experiment: Get a free solar quote from someone in your area and prove that solar isn’t affordable. You might be surprised. Or not. Either way, you’ll know for sure, and it’s free, so what’s to lose but a little time.  Thanks.

Switch to solar and save $36.44/mo on avg ($0 installations available)

Join the 1000s we've helped switch to solar!

9 thoughts on “The Profit of Climate Deniers and a Solar Power Experiment

  1. Thomas, thanks once again for your support of solar, for whatever reason. I have made no pre-conclusions, but I have seen arguments on both sides, and I personally believe the global warming science and not the skeptic’s version of science. Please once again click through this website. It answers many of your above points.


    Thanks for contributing, and for whatever reason, supporting solar.

  2. Tor/Christof, I’ve reviewed said links, and found no such proof whatsoever. Simply stating something does not make it so. As someone educated in science, I feel that I’m qualified to judge such statements as reasonable or not. The arguments in favor of anthropogenic global warming are the ones that are “hooey”. You can choose to believe as you like, but be careful where you place your faith.

    As for other reasons to promote solar power — to reduce pollution, save money, or what have you — I’m all for it. Solar is great. But not because cows are farting too much. Other issues such as “mercury, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrious oxide, ozone and horribly unhealthy air that is quite literally killing people every day” are certainly a huge concern. But they have nothing to do with climate change.

    It’s tempting to want to support every argument you think is in favor of the conclusion you’ve already formed (we need to cut down on pollution and get more efficient). But be selective in what you believe. Solar power will contribute to the solution of many problems. Climate fluctuations just isn’t one of them.

    BTW, all of those billions of tons of coal and barrels of oil came originally from atmospheric CO2. It was sequestered by living plants and algae in prehistoric times. During those times when it was in the atmosphere, there was no runaway hockey-stick Water World. Temperatures were not hugely affected by large swings in the level of CO2 concentration because the greenhouse effect produced by it was already saturated.

  3. Karin says:

    What do you think of NanoSolar? It is a company who is actively trying to reduce the cost of producing PV panels so that it is affordable for anyone to create a solar “system”. Thank you!

    1. Dave Llorens says:

      Hi Karen,
      That’s for commercial installation, it’s tough for homes to get enough bang out of thin film. not enough roof space.

  4. Christof says:

    Let me see if I have this straight: More than 6 billion human beings, billions of them burning billions of tons of coal, barrels of oil ever year and that somehow is not going to affect the earth, the environment, and the climate? Please!

    And Tor’s right, it’s not just about global warming, but about mercury, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrious oxide, ozone and horribly unhealthy air that is quite literally killing people every day. Plenty of scientific evidence of the link between air pollution (most of caused by cars and power plants) and asthma, heart attacks, chronic bronchitis, etc. See the American Lung Association’s 2009 State of the Air Report for More — http://www.lungusa.org/assets/documents/publications/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-report-2009.pdf – What’s really a travesty are free-market (read money) over everything perspectives that reduce value, and meaning, to money, and money only.
    .-= Christof´s last blog ..Tesla shaves range gap between gas, electric cars =-.

  5. Keep in mind that I have an off-grid house and do not work for an oil company.

    I’m not a climatologist, but I do have a Bachelor of Science degree from a respectable engineering school from which I learned the basic tenets of the scientific method, rational thought, and all the principles to a somewhat advanced degree regarding chemistry, optics, biology, materials, etc. The entire concept of climate change via the greenhouse effect sounded on the surface rational, but the conclusions were absurd and not backed by any science I could find. Upon further research, it became clear to me that this was in fact a political crusade in the guise of real scientifically-grounded concern.

    The primary scientific reason to discount CO2 as a potential threat (as if a warmer climate were truly a threat), is because of Beer’s Law, which in short says that there is a *logarithmic* dependence between the transmissivity of light through a substance and the product of the absorption coefficient of the substance (with some deviations in absorption coefficient at high concentrations due to electrostatic interactions between molecules in close proximity).

    You can think of these “greenhouse gases” and their absorption spectra like a blanket (a blanket which is clear to visible light but not to heat). If you crawl into bed and pull a thin sheet over you, it will absorb and re-radiate to your body a small amount of heat, maybe 20%. Add a thicker blanket on top, and more of your body heat will be captured, maybe 80%. Add another thick down comforter on top of that and you might expect 99.9% of your body heat to be held within. If you then add another blanket after that, you get no further benefit because the first three already absorbed virtually all of your body heat. You can add a thousand more blankets, but only 100% of your body heat will ever be retained by them.

    Water vapor in the atmosphere is like a really thick down comforter when it comes to the greenhouse effect. There’s almost nothing left over for CO2. Just a thin spectrum (wavelengths of infrared radiation), like a little gap in the blanket, which water vapor doesn’t cover. And we already have a thick down comforter of CO2 in that spectrum too. Virtually all of the heat that can be retained, already is. That’s very important for life on Earth because it keeps temperatures as balmy as they are. And if our thick layer of CO2 were to disappear, it could lead to another Ice Age. However, adding more CO2 is like putting another blanket on top of all those blankets already on there — it has no significant effect.

    The IPCC even acknowledged this limit in their Third Assessment Report:

    “Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing.”

    That is, although the primary (very narrow) absorption bands of CO2 are saturated or nearly saturated, the absorption band actually widens a very slight amount due to the saturation, which means that instead of hitting a complete asymptotic temperature increase ceiling, it continues growing logarithmically so that each geometric increase in the CO2 concentration contributes an arithmetic or linear increase in temperature. So far, human activity hasn’t even doubled the pre-industrial CO2 levels even once, but it would require another doubling of CO2 from the current level just to raise the temperature by about 1°C to 1.5°C. It would require a quadrupling of CO2 to raise temperatures by up to 3°C. There aren’t enough fossil fuels on the planet to do that.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will,” confirms Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    The games that the IPCC has been playing and calling science, in order to get around this fact of physics, even came out in their own Fourth Assessment Report:

    “The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9°C to 5.4°C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities.”

    The entire political argument extends from wild guestimates about how water vapor, clouds, and other processes feedback on a very minor temperature increase. If those guestimates were even remotely true, simple seasonal fluctuations would cause catastrophic warmings and coolings, which we obviously don’t see in reality. The truth is that our oceans, clouds, biosphere, and other systems all act, in aggregate, as buffers to prevent wild swings in climate, not to amplify them. The IPCC ignores all negative feedbacks and overestimates positive feedbacks in order to create models that have nothing to do with reality but which promote their political agenda.

    Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D, former NASA climatologist, observed, “I found from the CERES data a strongly negative SW feedback during 2002-2007. When added to the LW feedback, this resulted in a total (SW+LW) feedback that is strongly negative.” He further complained, “Is my work published? No… at least not yet… although I have tried. Apparently it disagrees too much with the IPCC party line to be readily acceptable. My finding of negative SW feedback of around 5 W m-2 K-1 from real radiation budget data (the CERES instrument on Aqua) is apparently inadmissible as evidence. In contrast, Dessler et al.’s finding of positive LW feedback of 2 W m-2 K-1 inferred from the AIRS instrument is admissible.”

    It is through this censoring and blacklisting of opposing views that the politicians and political activists have constructed the scientifically-incompatible concept of a “global consensus”. U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA admitted that, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” If there were this consensus, it would be fallacious to use it rather than empiricism to form a belief, or even worse, a public policy anyway. That fallacy even has a name: argumentum ad populum. Gore, the U.N., et al., have been using this “consensus” fallacy to avoid having to produce real evidence, and even use it as a way to shame, disrespect, and blacklist anyone asking for evidence.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others,” complained Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia, an Indian geologist at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet. “I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”

    “The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear,” wrote retired Navy meteorologist, Dr. Martin Herzberg, Ph.D. “If a scientist has a theory, he searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it. The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don’t even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.”

    “It is an axiom of science that if the outcome of an experiment or event does not accord with that predicted by a theory, the theory must be discarded, no matter how attractive it may have appeared initially,” wrote Dr. Jim Sprott, Ph.D, Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Chemistry. “That very situation now exists in relation to the projections of world climate as published by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC prediction of increasing concentration of so-called greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causing atmospheric temperatures to increase, dubbed ‘Global Warming’, seemed to have some merit, and there was widespread acceptance of it. However more recent impeccable data demonstrates that atmospheric temperatures are falling, and in fact have been falling for some years. The postulated connection between atmospheric temperature and atmospheric CO2 has broken down, and therefore the ‘greenhouse gas’ proposition has failed. The disparity between the IPCC prediction and observed data continues to widen, and no amount of rhetoric can alter this. The tests on which IPCC relies now contradict its scenario, and therefore its proposition is discredited.”

    “Here is some of the latest data,” Dr. Herzberg observed. “From the El Nino year of 1998 until Jan., 2007, the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere near its surface decreased some 0.25°C. From Jan., 2007 until the Spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping 0.75°C. The National Weather Service just issued a Sea Ice Advisory for the Western and Arctic Alaskan Coastal waters for significant ice developing in the next 10 to 14 days, with sea surface temperatures some 2° to 8°C colder than last year. Such recent data is ‘just the tip of the iceberg’ that is in process of sinking the Gore-IPCC ship of cards.”

    Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, noted in a June 18, 2007 essay his concurrence that global warming is not currently happening. “The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17%).”

    “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

    “It is ridiculous… that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise,” exclaimed Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, Ph.D, Apollo 17 Astronaut, Former NASA Advisory Council Chair, and former Senator. “‘Consensus’, as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.”

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another,” observed Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. “Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so… Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”

    Environmental Scientist and Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, who has more than 150 published articles, concurs with the dissidents. “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense… The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.”

    UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D environmental physical chemist has decried that warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history… When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

    The IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc., are political organizations first and foremost. Therefore, they serve political agendas and have inherent political biases. Scientists working for these organizations will tend to bias their research and conclusions in order to support the prevailing political bias so as to advance their careers and attract additional funding. The administrators of these organizations, the ones who write “summaries for policymakers”, are overtly politically-biased and actively advancing political agendas. What is the general political bias and prevailing agenda? To create a pretext to increase government control over people’s lives and wealth for “the good of the planet”. They’ve found such a pretext in carbon dioxide. There is no such pretext if they conclude that the sun is responsible for climate change.

    You can find an excellent overview and history of the “Global Warming Scam” by John Coleman, meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel at http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html. Coleman concludes “I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it. Global Warming: It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking public policy. It is the greatest scam in history.”

    Richard Mackey wrote a detailed scientific description, with many citations, of how the Sun causes climate change, which can be found at http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf.

    The fact is that “anthropogenic global warming” is not a real issue. Temperatures have decreased for the past 11 years, but nobody ever seems to advertise that fact. The idea that humans can have any control over global climate is a tragic hubris that borders on megalomania. They might as well recommend we try not to drive too much as a part of their efforts to slow plate tectonics!

    Climate *change* is a fact of life. The only thing ever stable about climate is that it changes — completely independent of human involvement! The primary driver is the solar cycles, which are currently indicating a period of cooling upon us. I’ve used solar models to predict that we would see cooling for years now, and so far that prediction has been very accurate. But there are many factors including volcanism (especially under the Pacific, which drives El Nino), cosmic radiation, tectonic movements, shifting ocean currents, et cetera.

    Climate change is something that everyone should be aware of and to which they should make appropriate accommodations to adapt. But scare-mongering to advance political agendas is deplorable. Using it to extract money from and exert control over populations is criminal. Invoking such arguments to advance green building and alternative energy is completely unnecessary and likely to backfire when the pseudo-science supporting it becomes widely acknowledged as fictitious. There are so many positive reasons to pursue sustainable living that using such manufactured reasons is superfluous. It would be a shame to stall these initiatives by linking them so closely with anthropogenic global warming. Instead, it should be made clear that climate can change in many ways, not all from the same cause and not necessarily predictably. We can get both warming and cooling, droughts and floods, solar flares, plagues of insects, forest fires, intense wind or extended periods of calm. There are also many things that man can do to affect us and our way of life, including resource depletion, infrastructure degradation, social unrest, depression, inflation, war, et cetera. We should be prepared to adapt to whatever nature or society throws at us, and not hitch such preparations to a single threat, particularly a manufactured one. And we should absolutely not satisfy the political ambitions of would-be despots by relinquishing our freedoms or our wealth to fund their snake-oil schemes to control climate.

    There is no greater misjudgment than to trust the government to act in the best interests of those from whom they derive their power and wealth.


    Thomas Anderson

    1. Obviously, Thomas, you failed to click on the links of this post, where actual, annotated science addresses all of the points you raise above and shows them to be hooey. I would particularly look again at the website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Good for you for being off grid. Nevertheless, you can voice your opinion here, but please keep in mind that we are interested in promoting solar power for other reasons, such as mercury pollution, coal ash spills, and other unrelated climate change issues, like… solar can now save you money over coal.

  6. Christof says:

    Breathing — definitely high on my list of fundamentally crucial components of human — and all — life ;-)

    Frankly, I think too many environmentalists have put all their eggs in the global warming basket. There are so many other reasons solar — and other renewables make sense, for homes, and for charging electric cars. Just to name a few — mercury emissions, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulates, and, of course, the ever-present noxious brown clouds in places like L.A., and Denver (where I happen to live).
    .-= Christof´s last blog ..Ten + things you can do to drive solar forward =-.

  7. Jim Jenal says:

    Spot on, Fred – you don’t have to believe in Climate Change (although we do) and you don’t have to believe it is a result of human actions (although we believe that, too) to realize that getting away from relying on fossil fuels just makes sense.
    Solar is a great step in that direction and, unlike more exotic solutions out there, is something that most every home and business owner can do now.

Have anything to add?

Your email address will not be published.