It’s good to see the update showing the PVs on the roof and I’d suggest it is unlikely that PV would be used for pool heating. Also check the time of year of the satellite shots – the trees are bare and it looks as if, in contrast to some neighbouring properties, the pool has a winterizing cover on it.

Isn’t the whole point of WUWT and Surface Stations one of questioning and validation of data to improve the standard of debate? I’m not a Gore fan or a pro AGW -I like the Surface Stations project as it clearly improves the understanding of some of the data used in the “climate” debate. I’d think checking out and verifying a story like the lead post would be in the same spirit.

Check out Graeme Rodaughan @19:10:50:

The faithful are typically blind to the sins of the Prophet.

Once a Prophet has established his supremacy amongst the Flock of believers, the issue of “noticing the sin” becomes “disloyalty to the Prophet”, and is hence not tolerated.

Self censorship by the faithful enables the Prophet to engage in all manner of acts without repercussion…

Go ahead, read the rest. It’ll do you some good.

And sorry I was disloyal to the Prophet. Please convey my remorse to the Anointed One. If you like, I’ll admit that you’ve convinced me I was wrong by your deft questioning of the statement of a no good, lying photographer you’ve never met.

In fact, I concede that maybe Mr. Gore really did turn his lights out, and this is all a big misunderstanding. Someone who made the internet possible would never, ever forget to turn out the lights, would he? Well, would he?! Never.

So of course Al Gore turned his lights out for the sacred Earth Hour. He probably did it five minutes early.

Glenn:
He supplies no pictures of the house, or entranceway and only a few pictures of dimly lit address number on a fence and a tree, which actually contradicts his claim of “grand” lighting.

“You haven’t taken many pictures at night, have you?”

Actually I have, and with more than a cellphone camera. Shouldn’t you be asking that of Johnson? Have you ever taken pictures at night of an object that is illuminated by *floodlights*?

Provide a url to the pics he claims to have of “floodlights illuminating Al Gore’s driveway entrance and several trees.” ON Johnsons site all I see is an address number on a fence and what might be construed as one or two trees close together (in any event, not “several”) probably lit by low volt landscape lights.

What I really don’t understand is why sincerely concerned “believers” defend (or deny) Gore’s hypocrisy. They should be angry at him!

Yeah, they should be angry at him, but then they wouldn’t be “believers”. They call everyone else “deniers” because they think that everyone thinks like them, as either a “believer” or “denier” – same difference = none. Pretty strange, and we are not going to be able to crack that nut – the “believers” thinking that the “deniers” are just like them, only “wrong”, “evil”, or whatever. “Believers” simply cannot understand science.

He supplies no pictures of the house, or entranceway and only a few pictures of dimly lit address number on a fence and a tree, which actually contradicts his claim of “grand” lighting.

You haven’t taken many pictures at night, have you?

“Glenn,

“See, now you’re changing your story — just like I knew you would.”

Evidence? What was my original story and what was my changed story, so that we may compare?

“You complained that the pictures had “no time stamp on them.” <— [Those were your words.]”

Well of course. But unless I had at some point “complained” that they had timestamps on them, you have failed to support your claim that my “story has changed”.

“But the article makes it clear that there were, in fact, time stamps on the photos: The article states:”

A claim isn’t evidence. And the fact that the claim was made doesn’t support your contention that my “story changed”. The article does not make it clear that there “were” timestamps on any photos, or on the photos specifically on the website. You quoted the relevant passage yourself; “I *have* timestamped pictures”. But that doesn’t mean he was referring to the photos on the website (they are undoubtedly *not* timestamped). You let me know if you see a timestamp on these pics:
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/goreearthhour.jpg

“I have time-stamped pictures of the floodlights illuminating Al Gore’s driveway entrance and several trees between 8:40-9:00pm during “Earth Hour,” which is certainly an inconvenient truth for Mr. Gore.”

What is inconvenient here is Johnson not supplying evidence that his pictures were taken when he claims they were. He supplies no pictures of the house, or entranceway and only a few pictures of dimly lit address number on a fence and a tree, which actually contradicts his claim of “grand”
lighting.

Quit digging that hole deeper, Mr. Glenn. Your HE-RO is a washed up scamster.
Find a better hero.”

Johnson may have “timestamped photos”, but the *fact* is that the ones on his website are not.

You are taking his word that he has timestamped photos and claiming that he does as a “matter of fact” have such photos. You couldn’t dig a hole any deeper than that for yourself, IMO.

Excuse me if I don’t bow before your amazing logic, Gore is not my hero, I haven’t changed my story and you haven’t shown that I have.

See, now you’re changing your story — just like I knew you would.

You complained that the pictures had “no time stamp on them.” <— [Those were your words.]

But the article makes it clear that there were, in fact, time stamps on the photos: The article states:

I have time-stamped pictures of the floodlights illuminating Al Gore’s driveway entrance and several trees between 8:40-9:00pm during “Earth Hour,” which is certainly an inconvenient truth for Mr. Gore.

Quit digging that hole deeper, Mr. Glenn. Your HE-RO is a washed up scamster.

Find a better hero.

Glenn (21:35:49) :

Those pics are a joke, with no time stamp on them…

“Read the article. As a matter of fact, the pictures did have time stamps on them.”

The pics that come with the article are a joke, with no time stamp on them. There’s nothing in the article supporting the claim.

“The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion.”
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-will-leave-the-lights-on-for-ya/

The real kicker is that the pictures on this website do not reflect “grand” highlighting of trees or the driveway entrance. A “time stamp” on a picture isn’t evidence of when the pic was taken, either, only of the time the photographer decided to put on the pic. And in light of the way Johnson makes these accusations and only claims to have time-stamped pics, I wouldn’t trust him not to change a time stamp on a pic, if he even has pictures of that evening. A good way of timestamping is to place a newspaper in the photos, not behind some inaccessible Facebook page.

This is bad publicity for ~snip~ and good for Gore’s.

Those pics are a joke, with no time stamp on them…

Read the article. As a matter of fact, the pictures did have time stamps on them.

[1] Al Gore Enriches himself.

“In other words, he ‘buys’ his ‘carbon offsets’ from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself,” Hobbs writes. “To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy ‘carbon offsets’ through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks.”
Ref 1: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528
Ref 2: http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=258075474834657

[2] Regarding the facts of AGW. Suggest more extensive reading on your part of

http://www.climateaudit.org/ and
of course http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
http://climatesci.org/

REPLY: There are more pics on the facebook site of the fellow from TN, follow the links. I don’t have a facebook account and don’t want one – Anthony

Yes – this is what is claimed. Like you I’m not a facebooker so can’t verify this. Have you? Has anyone? By now I’d have thought they’d have made it off facebook if they were on any consequence?

“Gore bought his multimillion dollar home in 2002 in Belle Meade, an exclusive city encircled by metropolitan Nashville, and he has embarked on an ambitious renovation. But his contractors ran into a legal barrier last summer when they sought to apply for a permit to install solar panels on the roof.”

“A conservative group that disputes the findings about global warming criticized Gore last month, complaining that his home uses too much electricity.”

“New rules on April 1 will allow homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs. But there’s a caveat: “Solar panels may be installed upon the roof of a building so long as they are not visible from the street or from any adjoining property,” according to the ordinance.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259938,00.html

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0drHbJSg6N2wk
http://climateprogress.org/2007/12/16/gore-greens-his-tennessee-home/
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003741885_gorehouse10.html

REPLY: Thanks for finding the pictures. I count 34 panels and they look to be 200 watt panels. So at 200 watts x 34 it looks like about 6 .8 kilowatts there. If they are 250 watts due to higher efficiency, then that would be 8500 watts of capacity at full sun. My own system I installed on my own home in 2005 was rated at 10KW, and my home is about 1/4 the size of the Gore residence, and it didn’t cover my power bill (mostly due to the well pump) so I would have to assume this solar array makes only a small dent in the total energy use there. Since the home was purchased in 2002, I wonder why he waited so long? Response to criticism perhaps? – Anthony