The U.S. is poised to return to the moon this coming April as part of a reenergized manned space program that is emboldened rather than deterred by the risks and challenges irrevocably attached to the mission.
By pressing ahead, NASA and its many public and private sector partners are allowing scientific evidence rather than speculation to guide their decisions. They are also making a clean break with a concept known as the “precautionary principle” that has deep roots in the United Nations climate conferences that date back to the early 1990s.
As I explain in my new book “Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence,” the precautionary principle as it is defined by climate activists is antithetical to what makes America tick.
The basic idea behind the concept is that when an activity is viewed as being potentially harmful to human health or the environment then precautionary steps should be taken even if the cause-and-effect relationship between the activity and theorized harmful results are not scientifically established.
In other words, there should not even be a risk of a risk. Under this scenario, hysteria, fear, and misinformation could grind all meaningful human activity to a halt.
Imagine how different American history would have been if the precautionary principle had held sway with policymakers when the nation first attempted venturing into space. Alan Shephard’s famous line “Why don’t you fix your little problem and light this candle?” would not have found a receptive audience back in mission control during his 1961 spaceflight.
President John F. Kennedy’s patriotic march to the moon would not have materialized either. His comment, “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” would not have expression in a world where fear of failure trumped exploratory efforts.
In fact, there may not have been a free United States of America at all. George Washington would not have crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night in 1776 to launch a surprise attack on the Hessians in Trenton, New Jersey since the effort was risky and—and, well, it might not have worked at all.
The four astronauts (three Americans and one Canadian) who are part of the Artemis II crew will travel further into space than any human has ever traveled before and glimpse a side of the moon that has never been seen before, before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California.
It takes a special kind of courage to be part of the upcoming 10-day mission, as it does with any human spaceflight. From the time of the launch at Cape Canaveral to the splashdown in the Pacific, there are risks that can never be completely eradicated. But they can be curtailed.
Like Apollo before it, Artemis is relying upon vigorous testing and scientific observations rather than mere modeling exercises that became a dominant part of what passes for “climate science.”
But times are changing and the wheel is turning. During a May 2025 energy symposium at The Heritage Foundation, scientists and economists dissected the numerous false assumptions behind climate models that have given rise to burdensome regulations.
Former NASA engineers, who are part of a group called The Right Climate Stuff have also taken a hatchet to what some call a “garbage in, garbage out” approach to modeling designed to produce desired policy outcomes.
“Climate Porn” goes into some detail about the climate movement’s assault on the scientific method and the corrective actions now underway. Independent, privately funded outfits like the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) are providing climate realists with valuable platforms to take a hard look at what really drives warming and cooling trends on Planet Earth.
During the Heritage energy symposium, CERES scientists called attention to solar influences on climate, which the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has persistently neglected to account for in its reports. In a new study, the CERES team concludes that “total solar irradiance” estimates the U.N. omits strongly suggests most of the warming since the 19th Century could be natural.
The climate is always changing, and those changes could present challenges to humanity particularly if the planet moves back into a cooling phase. But humanity will be in a stronger position to adapt and adjust to those changes if it is richer, wealthier, and more industrialized. A reinvigorated space program is a big part of that equation.
That means taking chances and accepting risks, but that’s the American way.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
