I guess it was inevitable. Climate change fanatics would hijack the current aldrin buzz being generated by the 50th anniversary of the Moon Landings to promote their climate action agenda. After all, they’ve already accused us ‘deniers’ of being Moon Landing Conspiracists, so I guess it’s quite a natural progression of their ‘thinking’ (though I do use that word advisedly).

The NYT says:

The original moon shoot inspired billions. Calling climate action a moon shot isn’t a perfect parallel — but maybe we should try it anyway.

You can say that again: “The original moon shot inspired . . . . ” Never mind.

It is patently bloody obvious that the comparison is absurd, but don’t let that stop you raining on the parade of global celebrations marking perhaps what is the single most remarkable achievement of the 20th century, if not technologically, then certainly symbolically.

The narrative only goes downhill from the initial low point:

Could a “moon shot” for climate change cool a warming planet?

So why not do it all over again — but instead of going to another astronomical body and planting a flag, why not save our own planet? 

But President Kennedy did not have to convince people that the moon existed. In our current political climate, the clear evidence that humans have generated greenhouse gases that are having a powerful effect on climate, and will have a greater effect into the future, has not moved the federal government to act with vigor. And a determined faction even argues that climate change is a hoax, as President Donald Trump has falsely stated at various times.

And the moon shot had a clearly defined goal: Land on the moon. A finish line for fighting climate change is less clear. Back to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? (We have already passed 412 parts per million.)

Climate change is certainly an urgent challenge. Rising levels of greenhouse gases are raising temperatures worldwide, leading to shifting weather patterns that are only expected to get worse, with increased flooding and heat waves, and drought and wildfiresafflicting millions. 

The idea of a moon shot for climate has been gaining supporters. Beto O’Rourke and Kirsten Gillibrand use the idea in their presidential campaigns, as did Michael Bloomberg in unveiling his recently announced $500 million Beyond Carbon campaignIn a commencement speech this year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology he said, “It is time for all of us to accept that climate change is the challenge of our time.” He concluded, “It may be a moon shot — but it’s the only shot we’ve got.”

Why is it that everything climate alarmists touch turns to absolute shite? There are even progressive liberal idiots going around complaining about Armstrong’s sexist ‘non inclusive’ language for heaven’s sake! Try to enjoy your 50th anniversary Moon Landing gold in spite of the killjoys


  1. Even the Telegraph wants to spoil the fun:

    50 reasons why Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin should
    never have walked on the Moon

    Number 8: Because Nazis!

    Flying to the Moon required a rocket on a scale never seen before. The Saturn V was 110m tall, almost exactly the same height as St Paul’s Cathedral. Those that saw it take off described it as unforgettably loud, earth-shakingly powerful. It burned more fuel in a second than Charles Lindbergh used in his 33 ½ hour Atlantic plane crossing in 1927.
    The man who directed its design was rocket architect Wernher von Braun. During the Second World War he had led development of the devastating German V-2, the world’s first long-range guided ballistic missiles. These rockets killed thousands, and were manufactured using concentration camp labourers.
    Von Braun was a genius of aerospace engineering without whom it is unlikely Apollo would have succeeded, at least not at the same pace. He was a prestigious spoil from the Germans at the conclusion of the war, effectively kidnapped by America for his expertise in rocketry, in a program codenamed Operation Paperclip.
    He was also a member of the Nazi party who was pictured during the 1940s wearing an SS uniform. Albert Einstein was one notable signatory of a letter to President Truman in 1946, which described the country’s recently-imported German scientists, including von Braun, as “potentially dangerous carriers of racial and religious hatred”.
    Von Braun expressed regret about his past, although not to a satisfactory degree for his critics, but he was the Apollo programme’s great Faustian bargain.

    Social justice warriors will never give up trying to force us to see history through the lens which they personally think we should.


  2. Ironically, the V-2 is another reminder of how dangerous and deadly government backed science can be. Seems more like an argument against a government funded “war” on climate change.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Here’s an odd thing. There are articles all over the press (Guardian, Independent, NYT, Time…) about conspiracy theories concerning the Moon Landing Hoax, yet not one of them mentions Lewandowsky’s groundbreaking research linking moon landing scepticism and climate denialism. Yet only seven years ago the same journals all carried enthusiastic reports about Lewandowsky’s paper. I wonder what made them change their minds?


  4. Geoff,
    There’s been a subtle change in direction from the climate change fanatical main stream media and establishment. The Moon Landings – supported and celebrated by Trump – are increasingly viewed by the Left as some sort of egotistical expression of the triumph of capitalism and white male privilege – a western indulgence, a power play which in retrospect was nowhere near inclusive enough for the progressive Left. So, in some ways, talking down the moon landings, even airing accusations that they didn’t happen at all, is quite convenient for this new narrative. Of course, they will never side with the moon landing conspiracists because this would then expose them to accusations of off-world hypocrisy. But pointing out that climate deniers are also moon landing conspiracists wouldn’t exactly fit with this subtle change in narrative. Poor Lew, the crowning glory of his life’s work and greatest intellectual achievement now effectively labelled ‘inadmissible as evidence’ by the new progressive climate emergency obsessed Left!


  5. Jaime,

    It’s interesting that the climate-concerned should focus upon the space race and yet miss the fact that it existed within the broader context of an arms race between two superpowers. Had they picked up on that fact, they would have recognised the more meaningful comparison to be made here. The arms race existed because each of the adversaries assumed the worst case when analysing the uncertainties regarding their opponent’s possible intentions, and each responded by applying the precautionary principle. To quote Casper Weinberger, Reagan’s Defense Secretary:

    “Yes, of course we used worst-case analysis. You should always use a worst-case analysis in this business. You can’t afford to be wrong. If we won by too much, if it was over-kill, so be it.”

    Regarding the Weinberger’s statement, the British ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Soviet collapse in 1991 (Sir Rodric Braithwaite) wrote in his book, ‘Armageddon and Paranoia’, that:

    “This may have been understandable politics; but it was disreputable intellectually.”

    As a result of basing their risk analyses and risk management on worst case scenarios, the two superpowers ended up expending countless trillions to bring the world to the brink of extinction, a brink at which we still stand. At the outset, each party may or may not have faced an existential threat posed by the other (the historical evidence suggests not) but by the time they were finished, everyone certainly did!

    So what are we doing now with climate change? Repeating exactly the same flawed logic. Global warming may or may not pose an existential threat (the scientific evidence suggests not) but by the time the politicians are finished, we may very well do. The only difference is that there is no economic battle between two adversaries and so there is no hope that the problem will resolve itself due to the economic collapse of one of the combatants. Any economic collapse will result in the demise of us all. As Braithwaite said: understandable politics based upon an intellectually disreputable foundation.


  6. John, There may be no conflict between powerful adversaries, but there still remains the climate itself. There is no guarantee that it will follow the prescribed path mapped out for it by models or other alarmist prognosticators. Several of us believe that no amount of science or argument will deviate us from our destructive pathways. Only the climate itself can remedy our self delusions.


  7. That’s a good point John. I would say that the arms race at least resulted in the development of useful technologies which could be used in peace time – the Germans developing rocket technology at the end of WW2 and jet engine technology being good cases in point. I can’t see any technological benefits from the race to go Green – quite the opposite in fact. Maybe there will be a few in time but the cost seems to far outweigh the potential pay-off.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.