Even Einstein Admitted He Was Wrong. We Apparently Can’t Expect as Much From Al Gore.

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

When it comes to scientific theories, even some of history’s most respected and renowned people and institutions have graciously admitted when they were wrong when confronted with irrefutable evidence.

It took 359 years, but eventually the Catholic Church conceded in 1992 that the church was wrong and Galileo Galilei was right – the Earth revolves around the sun.

Throughout the 18th century, chemists widely believed that a substance called phlogiston was released when materials were burned. But when Antoine Lavoisier demonstrated that many metals often became heavier when burned – the opposite of the phlogiston theory – his contemporaries humbly admitted their error and praised his experiments.

And when scientists, including Edwin Hubble in 1929, demonstrated that the universe is expanding rather than remaining static, as Albert Einstein had theorized, even the revered Einstein readily admitted he was wrong, calling it “my biggest blunder.”

Twenty years ago, in 2006, former Vice President Al Gore released his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which included ominous and even hysterical warnings about a coming climate apocalypse if mankind did not dramatically change its ways. In the two decades since its release, the film’s most dire warnings have proven to be inaccurate.

Examining Gore’s film on the anniversary of its release, several writers have pointed out its most glaring errors. For instance, writing for Newsweek, Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, notes several calamitous predictions in the film that time has proven wrong: deaths from climate-related disasters have actually plummeted; hurricane frequency and intensity have declined; globally, areas burned by wildfires have decreased over the past quarter century; and the supposedly endangered polar bear population – a memorable visual from the Gore film – has more than doubled from the 1960s to today.

“Gore’s apocalyptic climate predictions have aged poorly,” Lomborg concludes.

Over the years, countless critics have pointed out the errors both in Gore’s film and in his ensuing personal crusade as, like Don Quixote, he continues tilting at windmills (while ironically advocating for their proliferation).

Faced with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence refuting his original hypotheses, one might assume that Gore – like the Catholic Church, the chemists of the 18 th century, and even the great Albert Einstein – would humbly concede his mistakes.

One would be wrong.

In a recent interview marking the anniversary of “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore found an uncritical partner in the form of ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee, who couldn’t have presented the former vice president in a more heartwarming light if she had somehow commissioned the late Norman Rockwell to paint his portrait.

Despite the obvious numerous mistakes and shortcomings in his film, Gore insisted that he and the scientists he relied upon have been right all along – while simultaneously demonstrating that his
penchant for hyperbole remains unabated.

“The scientists were dead right on all the important elements of it,” Gore insisted, adding that “it really is insane that we are continuing to use the sky as an open sewer and we’re trapping so much heat every day it’s equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth.”

Huh? Would you repeat that please?

It’s “equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth.”

Thanks.

It is little wonder that Gore finds himself so easily mocked. Gore’s atomic bomb analogy originated from climate alarmists who have been using it for years, adding a few hundred thousand to the estimate of bombs every so often.

But for anyone remotely familiar with history, the claim conjures images of people dropping like flies every day because of global warming, since the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 instantly killed more than 100,000 people. Such over-the-top depictions are why so many find it so hard to take seriously the kind of climate change threats that come from the radical left.

Unfortunately for the average citizen – both in the U.S. and worldwide – the far-left (formerly mainstream) media’s enthusiasm for propping up Gore and the climate craze have real-world consequences. Despite mountains of conflicting evidence, the media provides cover for leftwing government types who, when in power, throw billions of dollars toward scientifically unsupported efforts to replace our most affordable and reliable energy resources with defective “alternatives” made feasible only because of taxpayer subsidies.

That’s why Americans deserve the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act either passed into law by Congress, put into effect by presidential executive order, or at the very least embedded into policy by agency rule. While some states are enacting their own versions of ARC-ES, U.S. citizens from coast to coast deserve to be protected from the whims of the climate cult and their self-styled prophets.

We apparently can’t expect Al Gore to show the class of Albert Einstein and admit he was wrong. But it’s entirely realistic to expect our government to protect us from ever again implementing energy policies based on his mistakes. Doing so has already cost us far too much.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.