Essay by Eric Worrall
She flew to space for “the benefit of Earth”.
Katy Perry Is Being Called A “Walking Oxymoron” After Fans Uncovered A Decade-Old Video Of Her Urging People To Protect The Planet Against “Man-Made Climate Change”
“The hypocrisy is astounding.”
by Leyla Mohammed
BuzzFeed StaffI’m sure you’re well aware by now that Katy Perrywas among the group of women who briefly flew to space this week as part of a mission run by Jeff Bezos’s company Blue Origin.
After returning safely, Katy notably claimed that the controversial trip was for “the benefit of Earth.” She said, “It’s about a collective energy and making space for future women. It’s about this wonderful world that we see right out there and appreciating it. This is all for the benefit of Earth.”
…
Well, the backlash has only continued to grow after fans uncovered old footage of Katy actually advocating against “man-made climate change.”
…
Read more: https://www.buzzfeed.com/leylamohammed/katy-perry-climate-change-activism-amid-backlash-hypocrisy
Katy Perry advocating for climate action 9 years ago:
Katy Perry returning to Earth after spaceflight;
I don’t know why people are making a fuss. There is nothing new about celebrity climate hypocrisy. And the UNICEF video was nine years ago, back when climate action was more fashionable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alan Shepard first ballistic flight was in 1961.
~
That flight happened when West Side Story was in the theaters.
~
It flew was 40 miles higher! Twice the speed of the Blue Origin and for a longer duration.
~
Even the X-15 flew higher.
~
Expensive 2025 Amusement park ride.
Yes, little more than a carnival ride, no input required by passengers, all computer controlled.
Only the western world is so crazy to claim that a group of people is brave for and strong taking an orbital taxi for 15 minutes – just because they are women(probably the only thing they are capable of besides wasting their husbands money).
And those 15 minutes of bravery will be for a long time the last 15 minutes they actually knew what a woman is.
sub-orbital and a total waste of energy.
If I were 30 years younger and had the cash, it would be a fun ride. Pointless except for the entertainment value and possibly a bucket list checkoff.
Dude – a parabolic flight with an A 310 is way cheaper and more entertaining than this glorified rollercoaster ride and you will actually experience zero gravity.
This is just to show off and for people who can afford everything and therefore buying lost its satisfactory kick.
Last resort for overstimulated millionaires.
No disagreement.
The view is not the same.
Salute!
All true “upcountry”, but the X-15 flights did not ignite great interest among the main population as Al Shep did, and anything to get kids away from the texting and games on their phones should be a good thing.
There must be hundreds/thousands of quotes about climate change that celebrities have flipped on, so what’s new.
I am not piling on and hope many in the public spotlight look back a bit and see that Earth is still habitable and we need to concentrate on adapting versing “controlling”.
Gums sends…
Yea who turn down going 2,500 mph and 350,000 feet high.
Flight Profile:
Sights and Sounds: Passengers see the curvature of Earth, a black sky, and sometimes the moon. Audio from missions includes passengers marveling at views, with moments like Katy Perry singing “What a Wonderful World” during the April 14, 2025, flight.
Hollywood is already working on a movie about the flight. The current working title is “Space Boobs.” Rick Moranis to play Jeff Bezos.
Hmmm . . . I see . . . a movie title reflecting on mental capacity of the crew . . . works for me.
/sarc
And nice contrast with “Space Balls”. 🙂
I think a better title would be boobs in spaces
I see your schwartz is almost as big as mine.
I’d like to see that
Katy Perry says “It’s about a collective energy and making space for future women. It’s about this wonderful world that we see right out there and appreciating it. This is all for the benefit of Earth.”
Hmmmm . . . “making” space for future women??? What about future men? What about future mankind . . . you know, Apollo 11’s plaque statement “We came in peace for all mankind.”?
And I seriously doubt that “collective energy” powered the Blue Origin rocket that carried her barely up into space for her 11 minutes or so of fame (hah!).
Finally, did Katy really need a rocket ride with a capsule window to see our “wonderful world” and to “appreciate it” . . . and was it really for “the benefit of Earth” or is it more likely she needed to participate in such a stunt to garner some publicity for a fading career?
Would that be a biological woman or a trans-gender identifying woman?
Curious minds want to know.
How is her publicity stunt all for the benefit of Earth?
Curious minds want to know.
“How is her publicity stunt all for the benefit of Earth? Curious minds want to know.”
Greg Gutfeld answered that one: “Because for 11 minutes, she wasn’t on it.”
Bwahahahaha…. Gutfeld nailed it!
You could greatly reduce the word count in your sentence as such: Would that be a woman, or a delusional nutjob?
You raise a point there, Sparta – why aren’t the usual suspects crying about the exclusion of trans-women from this flight?
Errrrrr . . . why do you assume there were no trans-woman on that flight. Got any “evidence” of that?
Got any “evidence” of that?
The complete lack of any coverage, especially since it would have been the first trans-woman in space and the list of passengers.
Errrrrr . . . why do you assume that to be the case?
Do you recall seeing some of the Soviet-era “female” cosmonauts outside of their spacesuits? YIKES! 🤪
/sarc
Glad I was not drinking coffee when I read your post.
Well, TYS, you might have a point. I didn’t look into that 🙂
But I did look up “first trans woman in space”. First result was an article about Sally Ride…
I am so ashamed of myself. I laughed til I cried!
lol – to say it with Biden words.
Space is a billion 300 million trillion times bigger than earth.
You can give every woman on earth a lightyear cube of space and there’d be 99.999999% of apace left.
Noone is holding space away from them.
And if they didn’t waste the money for half a dozen incompetent,useless celebrities
but invested it in trained competent women the flight wouldn’t have been a total waste.
What would the trained, competent women add to the flight. They’d still be passengers.
What propellants are used in the launch vehicle. Does a launch generate the dreaded GHGs?
A lot of (hot) CO2 was generated by the press/MSM and celebrities attending the launch, who effused prolifically over this publicity stunt.
As for the New Shepard rocket used to launch this “crew”, it uses only liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants, resulting in a rocket exhaust that is almost entirely super-hot steam (it does have some trace amounts of unburned hydrogen gas) . . . so yes for generating the strongest of all “greenhouse gases”, water vapor, but no for generating that bogeyman CO2.
Estimates (courtesy of perplexity.ai) are the sub-orbital launch with ~140 seconds burn time of the BE4-3PM engine would consume roughly 4,000 kg of LH2 and about 24,000 kg of LOX. No CO2 emitted.
But you also have to account for the energy needed to separate and liquify the oxygen, generate the hydrogen (probably by steam-reforming methane) and then liquify that as well. I’m betting almost none of that energy came from renewable sources.
By the time you calculate it all out the carbon footprint for these ladies to have their publicity excursion will be pretty substantial. No doubt they will purchase carbon offsets; they can afford it.
The major takeaway is if you are rich, famous, or rich and famous you have adventure opportunities not available to 99.9999% of the world’s population. Who knew?
Another several queries with perplexity.ai yields:
liquefaction energy for 4,000 kg. LH2 = 48,000 kWh at 12 kWh per. kg.liquefaction energy for 24,000 kg. LOX = 15,360 kWh at 0.64 kWh per. kg.CO2 emissions for 63,360 kWh is 24,457 kg. CO2CO2 emissions for SMR production of 4,000 kg H2 = 36,000-48,000 kg. of C02.Total CO2 emissions for Blue Origin New Shepard launch: 62.5 – 72 metric tons.Plus other emissions for crew travel, launch support personnel, etc., etc.
Her space trip has little chance of harming anyone, a small chance to inspire someone and at no cost to me. Her push to control the climate has zero chance of helping anyone, a good chance of inspiring harm, and is certainly misleading and my cost me substantially.
One has to blink twice when encountering a YouTube Topical context in information panel on a video. Especially one that provides information to counter misinformation that is actually misinformation manifest.
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.
The quote is from the YouTube Topical context in information panel.
It is classic mis/disinformation.
It was just a very expensive hen party.
A 10 min space taxi ride sold as heroic pioneering.
Joy ride
The CO2 emissions impact probably exceeded the impact of a COP meeting and fly-in.
For the whole shooting match, probably.
The rocket is propelled by liquid hydrogen, according to press releases.
No, not really . . . even considering all the fossil-fuel powered aircraft travel and ICE land vehicles used by the press/MSM get to the launch site to publicize this social media event to the world.
This all-female “spam in a can” {admittedly few will know the source of this reference 😉} mission flew on Blue Origin’s “New Shepard” rocket, which is more properly stated to use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants.
There is no CO2 emitted in that rocket’s exhaust.
Nope, just H2O, an incredibly powerful GHG.
Yes, but how much CO2 was generated making the thing for its one-shot bimbo express? Even if it is partly reusable, I imagine much is only safely used once. Also, the hydrogen and oxygen had to be generated and compressed, no doubt using fossil fuels.
As for “spam in a can,” I would guess it refers to the “long pig”, aka the “other white meat.”
In the movie “The Right Stuff,” the phrase “spam in a can” is used by test pilot Chuck Yeager to mock the Mercury astronauts, who were seen as simply being transported in a capsule without much control over the flight. The phrase evokes the image of the astronauts as mere passengers in a metal container, not active pilots.
I figured it was something like that, but my first, admittedly somewhat dark thought was the historical cannibalistic reference to human protein matter, thus referring to a ham product as opposed to some other canned consumable!
I thought it was understood that to burn hydrogen, oxygen was needed. I suppose I could have been more wordy.
Well hydrogen can be combusted (“burned”) with any of several different oxidizers other than oxygen (O2), including fluorine, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide and ozone.
Experimental rocket engines have been built and hot-fired in ground tests with H2-F2, H2-Cl2, H2-H2O2 and H2-O3 propellant combinations. Using liquid or gaseous fluorine as the oxidizer offers very high propellant combustion efficiency (expressed as specific impulse, in units of seconds*) due to its very high stoichiometric flame temperature (around 3900 K, compared to about 3100 K for hydrogen-oxygen at stoichiometric mixture).
Caveat emptor: the extreme and dangerous propensity of liquid fluorine to react with most materials, including the slightest contamination (such as fingerprints) on contact surfaces such a “compatible” metal plumbing, has demonstrated time and again to experimenters that that propellant combination is just not practical for rockets outside of a lab!
*Rocket engine specific impulse (Isp) is a measurement of propellant use efficiency and can be interpreted as the number of seconds that a rocket can produce a steady-state thrust of one pound force from burning one pound total mass of combined fuel and oxidizer. The higher the Isp (for the same rocket engine thrust rating) the lower the total mass of propellant needed for a given mission (e.g., required total impulse during flight).
Which combines with oxygen to form water, a very powerful GHG.
True, but the original point was CO2.
Maybe calculate her impact in terms of plastic bags and forever chemicals with a publicist to spread the results.
Do not omit the nail varnish they all wore.
I don’t give a damn what celebrities do, think or say.
I’m with you Bob.
I mean, I always go first-up to actors, singers, movie producers / directors, tv presenters, social media influenzas and the like for expert political governance and global trade wisdom and guidance.
Following their lead has gotten us to where we are today.
What happened? Did Katy bump Greta off this flight? Don’t make Greta mad!
Too late 🙁
“Jeff Bezos, what about me? . . . HOW DARE YOU!”
—G.T.
Encouraging people to eat junk food and waste resources having it individually delivered is hardly virtuous either. And the song is just a crime against humanity.
https://youtu.be/2eVlfW9ws7E
Maybe entertainment celebs should barred from space flights? Even Bill Shatner, ater his flight a couple of years ago, moaned about how humans were supposedly killing the earth, https://www.wionews.com/world/being-in-space-was-like-a-funeral-william-kirk-shatners-haunting-experience-goes-viral-8966935/
Perhaps one-way flights would be better—sort of a B-Ark marketing thing.
If you are in an Uber not driving you are in for a ride. If you get in a vehicle with anyone and they drive you are in for a ride.
Gale King was not driving she was in fact along for a ride.
Of course it was for the benefit of Earth, right up until it came back.
Brilliant!
The best laid plans…
Ummmm . . . too short a flight for that.
She and the others of here ilk who use these types of excuses to justify their space flights should show everyone how committed they are by staying in space maybe permanently.
Or merely getting stranded for 10 months.
Shape of rocket and cramming women into it suggests Bezos is compensating for something….
I mean.. come on!
Hey, hey, hey . . . there was quite an ejaculation of dust coming from under the crew capsule at the very end of that flight. Just sayin’ . . .
The MSM kept touting it as “historic”, “first all female crew”. Never mind that they were merely passengers, not crew. They conveniently forget about Valentina Tereshkova. Her trip took true courage.
Christa McAuliffe
The only Katy Perry song that I can name is the “Eye of the Tigger”. Explains why she’s full of pooh.
I see Germany’s elites have just returned from Outer Space-
Germany to Deport Single Male Asylum Seekers
Is it the Trump effect or concern about emissions per capita their deplorables wonder?
Strengths
Weaknesses
Broader Context (Incorporating Search Results)
Potential Counterpoints
TL;DRThe article accuses Katy Perry of climate hypocrisy for her Blue Origin space flight, citing her 2015 UNICEF advocacy and vague environmental impact claims. It mocks the mission as a trivial “carnival ride” but lacks evidence, reflects Watts Up With That?’s skeptical bias, and ignores the flight’s STEM inspiration goals and Blue Origin’s reusable design.
Do you have any thoughts of your own?
Yep . . . a default to a clear cut-and-paste job from the output of some AI bot reflects the commentor’s IQ being slightly above room temperature.
Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Oh, sorry . . . that was in degrees-Ameritemp. I thought everyone was already on-board.
“It provides context by referencing Perry’s 2015 UNICEF video and the specifics of the Blue Origin flight, making the hypocrisy argument accessible.”
Well, I don’t see how hypocrisy enters in here. Is she a hypocrite because she went on the flight after previously promoting human-caused global warming? How is this connected to make her a hypocrite? Climate Alarmists can’t fly on a rocket? Why?
I couldn’t name even one Katy Perry song. I just don’t get the connection between this rocket launch and alarmist climate change.
Because of the CO2 released by the rocket launch, and that the trip was completely selfish.
There was no CO2 created or released by the Blue Origin “New Shepard” rocket used in this publicity stunt. That rocket uses only liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants which combust to water vapor, no CO2.
During the launch.
Consider how H2 is generated from methane for use. Lots of CO2 released in that process both as methane breaks down and energy is applied to methane to force the conversion. Add in compression and cooling to become liquid H2. Of course, the rocket is not advertised as having been constructed without the use of petroleum products. That would be prohibitively expensive.
It is possible that Bezos used electrolysis to generate H2 (again – expensive), maybe to compress, but unlikely to cool it and keep it cool as that requires reliable power.
Her video was for UNICEF to support children. She could have donated her ticket fare rather than taking a publicity joy ride.
Talk about biased framing! Please explain what you imagine your phase “space tourism’s environmental trade-offs” to mean, exactly. Also, please provide the IPCC’s position on space tourism as it affects Earth’s climate.
ROTFL.
Katy Perry Is Being Called A “Walking
Oxymoron” After Fans Uncovered A Decade-Old Video Of Her Urging People To Protect The Planet Against “Man-Made Climate Change”This is no where near the hypocrisy thrown out by Mark Carney in his bid to be elected PM of Canada. He says one thing in his book, Values, and a totally different thing about pipelines, oil/gas and CO2, on the campaign trail. Which one should we believe?
“Fools’ names like fools’ faces are often found in public places.”
I am with Wendys on this clown show.
Bezos illustrates the difference between Musk and a wannabe