Last night I happened to catch John Coleman’s TV show, “Global Warming: The Other Side” on KUSI-TV, an independent TV station here in San Diego. Coleman’s an extremely interesting guy — founder of the Weather Channel, expert TV weatherman (formerly with “Good Morning America” on ABC), an irresistible, effervescent personality.

John Coleman — A resourceful “David” successfully challenging the global warming “Goliath.” Click .

In his hour-long news special (available HERE) Coleman takes aim at some major holes in global warming, and features serious charges that the temperature data on which global warming theories are based has been deliberately altered in the direction of warming.

Computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government’s primary climate center: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina. Smith and D’Aleo found that NOAA manipulated temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and cherry-picking the location of weather observation stations.

You can see more details in their report HERE.

Recently in the Wall Street Journal (1/14/10), Stanford economist Michael Boshkin observed that “If a CEO issued the kind of distorted figures put out by politicians and scientists, he’d wind up in prison.” As a scientist myself, I am especially saddened to see scientists referred to this way but that’s what Climategate’s all about. For example, Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in Climategate, indicated a private desire to “hide the decline” in global temperatures in recent years, and is currently under investigation by Penn State University. At the same time National Review Online is reporting that the Obama administration has awarded $ 500,000 to Mann as part of their economic stimulus package. So much for job creation and scientific peer review.

Earlier this week Fox News (1/11/10) reported this rather strange headline, “30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming” according to a “leading scientist” at Germany’s Kiel University. An author of the UN’s IPCC report, Professor Mojib Latif believes we’re in for a “mini ice age.” This is an interesting switch on global warming alarmism, but it suffers from one big problem: No climate model can reliably forecast climate decades ahead.

For those who didn’t already know, this was confirmed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder in a Climategate email, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” In his email, Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of NCAR, acknowledges privately a key point: In 1998 climate models did not predict the cessation of global warming that has occurred — despite continued increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide — over the last dozen years, and no one can explain why it happened. So climate forecasts decades in the future like Professor Latif’s are simply unreliable.

The decline of global warming politics is what we would expect as we approach an ebullient golden age of prosperity, exploration, and technology known as the 2015 Maslow Window. Polls indicate the public has already moved on. They are eagerly looking forward to prosperity and even a Camelot-style zeitgeist like that of the 1960s and of all other ebullient Maslow Windows of the last 200 years — all the way back to Lewis and Clark.

I hope everyone has a wonderful Christmas!

Christmas is the time of the year that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, who according to Matthew and Mark in the New Testament, was born to the Virgin Mary in the city of Bethlehem;  in about 4 BC.

Adoration of the Child (1439-43), a mural by Florentine painter Fra Angelico.  

Click 

Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and in his trial before the Sanhedrin Jesus himself  indicated that he is the Messiah (Mark 14: 53-65). 

Jesus’ moral teachings are as extraordinary today as they were 2000 years ago and include: the Golden Rule — Do unto others as you would have them do to you, turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, etc.  Jesus is also famous for his outreach to all who would listen, including sinners and even tax collectors, such as the apostle Matthew.  You can read more about Christ’s teachings in any online Bible and in many online commentaries.

The Star of Bethlehem — The Christmas Star

According to Matthew, the “Wise Men” from the east followed the star to Jerusalem and eventually found their way to the manger in Bethlehem where Jesus had been born.

Adoration of the Magi by Florentine painter Giotto di Bondone (1267–1337). The Star of Bethlehem is shown as a comet above the child. Giotto witnessed an appearance of Halley’s Comet in 1301. 

Click

 Although Giotto portrayed the Star of Bethlehem as a comet, other explanations have been suggested including a supernova or a conjunction of Jupiter and Venus.  This time of year many planetariums offer interesting public programs on this phenomenon.  Be sure to check out  the Vatican Observatory’s  perspective on the star.

Christmas in Africa with Dr. Livingstone (“I presume”) and Henry Stanley

One of the Great Explorations of the last 200 years was Dr. David Livingstone’s adventures in central Africa.  You might be interested in reading about how he and Henry Stanley celebrated Christmas in 1871, in “10 Lessons Dr. Livingstone (“…I presume?”) Teaches Us About the Human Future in Space”

And although not directly about Christmas, you may also enjoy checking out the spiritual side of the human expansion into the cosmos in, “10 Spiritual Connections of the Human Exploration of Space“.

Merry Christmas!

The Climategate scandal involves “some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data — facts that were laid bare by … disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit…” (Wall Street Journal, 12/1/09; B. Stephens).

Climategate connects with prospects for near-term space colonization in at least 3 major ways. One is financial.

Anything that weakens the potential for re-ignition of the major economic boom — actually the greatest global boom ever – that was interrupted by the Panic of 2008, might delay the near-term development of widespread affluence-induced ebullience that has powered each of the spectacular Maslow Windows (e.g., the 1960s Apollo Moon program) over the last 200 years.

One such potential factor is Cap and Trade. “The Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution and the National Black Chamber of Commerce all found that the bill will have devastating economic impacts … (including) significant losses in employment and GDP.” Republicans are not shy about characterizing it as “”the largest tax increase — about $ 400 million USD per year — in the history of America.” And according to Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (WSJ, 11/27/09), in response to a question from him, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated it won’t significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.

As countries like the U.S. struggle to recover from the current great recession, major new taxes are considered unwise government policy by most economists. This is especially true in the U.S.’s current deficit situation.

According to former Congressional Budget Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin,

The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $ 1.4 trillion — the highest since World War II — as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.

Equally threatening to the next Maslow Window which, based on 200-year timing, should open near 2015 and extend to around 2025, is that there is no relief in sight.

Our national debt is projected to stand at $ 17.1 trillion 10 years from now, or over $ 50,000 per American …

Regarding the potential upswing (characteristic of a Maslow Window), Holtz-Eakin comments that,

The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth … Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living.

Mr. Holtz-Eaking concludes that the president’s “policies are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg.”

The deficits are also taking a political toll as President Obama’s poll numbers decline. According to Karl Rove (WSJ, 11/27/09),

Anger over deficits was picked up in a late October NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll which asked voters if they’d rather boost “the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits” or keep the “budget deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.” Only 31% chose boosting the economy; 62% wanted to keep the deficit down.

This is consistent with Gallup polls (9/17/09) indicating Obama’s lowest marks on his handling of the deficit; only 38% approved and 58% disapproved.

The good news for Obama’s popularity and the deficit — as well as the 2015 Maslow Window — is that Climategate has weakened the prospects for Cap and Trade. According to Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe (WSJ, 11/27/09),

Cap and Trade is dead … Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in.

The second way Climategate connects with prospects for near-term space colonization is psychological.

Over the years Global Warming has been presented as a near-certain chamber of horrors including sea level rises of 3 feet or more resulting in devastating, global coastal flooding, huge temperature increases of 5 or more degrees producing plant and animal extinctions, increasingly intense hurricanes and extensive ecosystem damage … and on and on. All because humans are commiting the sin of releasing too much carbon into the environment. And we much stop now before it is too late.

Even the wildest claims about the dangers of global warming are routinely trumpeted by much of the media, including that giant Burmese pythons will migrate as far north as San Francisco and take over one-third of the U.S.. I heard the python story on local radio one day in Southern California and was very amused, but not everyone is. For example, many young children — who are much too young to evaluate the political and scientific issues involved — are frightened. One recent survey shows that 1 of 3 children aged 6 to 11 fears that our planet won’t exist when they grow up, and over one half believe that the Earth will be “a very unpleasant place to live.”

The usual solution to global warming fears is an anti-growth, anti-technology message. The “science is settled” so all we can do is dramatically cut back our use of fossil fuels, submit to trillions of dollars of taxes, and end our hopes of increasing prosperity due to crippled economies.

Even before Climategate, the public was not buying it. For example, in 2006 Gallup found that the percentage saying global warming will “pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime” was only 35%; 62% thought it would not. And earlier this year, Gallup reported “the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.” The Climategate scandal is likely to accelerate this trend among the public.

A number of scientists have proposed innovative technological approaches to mitigation of global warming if it were to become a serious problem in the 21st century. Perhaps the most interesting examples are from Roger Angel, the discussion in March/April, 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs, and the distinguished Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson.

This trend toward a more positive and realistic approach to climate change — being accelerated now by the revelations of Climategate — is very consistent with historical trajectories of public attitudes at comparable times over the last 200 years. As I pointed out in a previous post:

As we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, two other effects will increasingly come into play: 1) the fact that Maslow Windows are characterized by unusually optimistic (even ebullient) public attitudes, and 2) the increasing global fascination with large, international technology programs and space colonization – expected during the 2015 Maslow Window — will suggest to many around the world that solutions to key global challenges (e.g., the environment, energy) will benefit from space technology and resources.

The third way Climategate connects with prospects for near-term space colonization is through science.

Science is special. It is the only objective way humans have of probing physical reality and learning about the Universe. Scientists collect data about a natural system and then propose a model for how it works. Scientists use the model to make predictions about what should be observed in the real world. Those predictions are checked by observations of the natural system; any deviations from physical reality are used to change the model and thus improve it. Repeatedly using this process — making observations, sharing data, openly discussing issues — can result in a convergence of the model with physical reality.

That’s how it’s supposed to work. But the scientific method can break down, even for major questions. And when it does it shakes the foundations of what we know about the Universe, including potentially the public’s belief in our ability to expand human civilization into the cosmos, or even just to prosper on the Earth.

Here are some examples:

1. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Dr. Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
In his email, Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of NCAR, acknowledges privately a key point: In 1998 climate models did not predict the cessation of global warming that has occurred — despite continued increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide — over the last dozen years, and no one can explain why it happened.

MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen (WSJ, 11/30/09) points out that articles by climate modelers attrribute “the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for natural internal variability …” like El Nino and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. “Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change (i.e., human-caused warming via CO2) was shown to be false.”

The bottomline is that: 1) modelers are admitting that something other than carbon dioxide can drive global climate change (e.g., natural variability), and 2) because the climate models cannot explain even the current lack of global warming, their predictions for warming 10, 20, or more years into the future are unreliable. And thus while global warming might indeed become a major problem at some point in the future — as astrophysicists assure us it will within a billion years when the Sun’s luminosity predictably increases and evaporates Earth’s oceans — we cannot accurately predict even near-term warmings or coolings with current climate models.

If the scientific method had been operating normally, these and many other secret conversations would have been shared with other scientists and the public in real-time. Instead, sadly we had to wait for Climategate to reveal them and clarify important issues.

2. “Science is not always what scientists do.” J. Allen Hynek (d. 1986), formerly Professor and Chair, Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University.
Scientists are people first and scientists second. They are subject to the same fears, greed, jealousies, ambitions, anger, etc., as anyone else. In fact, scientists are only being scientists when their professional activities conform to the scientific method as sketched above.

Sometimes scientists behave with almost quasi-religious attitudes. Religions are atrractive to the vast majority of people because they involve belief systems and world views that give meaning to life. Plus challenges to their beliefs do not usually disturb the believers because they are based on faith. In essence, while religions may be supported by historical or physical evidence, they are not fundamentally driven by it, as science is.

For example, in August 2009 more than 60 prominent German scientists — including several UN IPCC scientists — declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” in an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. They noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures and that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

Sometimes scientists behave more like politicians than scientists. In real democracies the people often vote to make decisions on important issues. In science, voting or authority figures do not determine our picture of physical reality, only data does. Today we especially admire Galileo for standing up to the authority of the 17th century Roman Inquisition and not disavowing his then controversial telescopic observations of the Sun, Moon, and planets. This idea of the primacy of observational data has penetrated deeply into modern life, even beyond the natural sciences. For example, the British economist John Maynard Keynes — father of Keynesian economics — once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Sadly, the Galileo Principle of the primacy of observational data in science is not reflected in the private emails of Climategate. For example, Professor Phil Jones, who has stepped down temporarily as head of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia while Climategate is investigated, speaks privately of modifying temperature data sets to “hide the decline” in global temperatures. According to John Lott of FoxNews.com (12/1/09), another CRU professor,

Tim Osborne, discusses in emails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise been seen in the results. Professor Mann (of Penn State) sent Professr Osborne an email saying the results he is sending shouldn’t be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data.

When ideology trumps science, some scientists act like politicians. They secretly modify data to conform to their party-line beliefs. I am not surprised that some scientists are dishonest; they are regular people and that’s to be expected. My concern is the way the scientific method has been deliberately ignored for many years by many scientists around the world, who definitely know better. This, including the destruction of the original temperature data sets by Climategate scientists, has obscured our view of the details of real global climate change. And certainly, as Professor Lindzen points out, “Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre.”

3. Is science dying?
As a planetary scientist who’s worked in the aerospace industry and in academia, and has been thrilled by the idea of space colonization since a very young age, my major concern is what Climategate means for science. Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal recently asserted (12/3/09) that “science is dying.” Henninger continues,

I don’t think most scientists appreciate what has hit them … For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. The public was told repeatedly that something called ‘the scientific community’ had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry … Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because ’science’ said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons.

But because of the Climategate scandal — an “epochal event” — the public’s view of science is about to change.

The average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and “messy” as, say gender studies … If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter what their politics, has a stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.

For some, global warming politics and ideology are all that matter; you can recognize them by their lack of interest in the details of climate science and their attempts to ignore or divert attention from the science-related content of Climategate.

Science should be quite different from politics in both methods and goals, and certainly needs to move farther away from politics so that the scientific method can flouish again. As long as politics and ideology dominate science — as they have in the climate change field — we can never know what really exists in the Universe and how it works.

If the universities and governments affected by Climategate take appropriate action against those who stifled the free and open discussion of scientific data and issues in Climategate, the essence of science and even science’s public image can recover.

In a best-case scenario, Climategate could ironically help stimulate the New Space Age by strengthening our global financial picture, helping people everywhere regain a positive, even ebullient feeling about the future, promoting 1960s-style pro-technology, prosperous attitudes, and reaffirming that science is indeed a reliable tool for expansion of human civilization from a vibrant Earth into the cosmos.

If the last 200 years of Maslow Windows are any guide, that’s what we should expect will happen.

The world’s “first clown to go into orbit” lifted off yesterday morning (GMT) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. While some cynics might insist that other “clowns” have already been in orbit — and they shall remain nameless here — this was the first professional clown to actually do it.

Canadian billionaire Guy Laliberte is the 7th private space tourist and the 1st real clown to reach orbit. Click .

Guy Laliberte, the founder of Cirque du Soleil paid the Russians $ 35 M for a Soyuz ride to the International Space Station; he plans to give a space-worthy performance that will be streamed on the internet.

According to the BBC, Mr. Laliberte is different than anyone ever to visit orbit,

I’m an artistic person and a creator. I’m not a scientific. I’m not an engineer. Life has given me some qualities, some assets and I have built up a team of very creative people around the world. With those people I think we’ll present something that is originally creative and hopefully will have the result of sensitising people toward the situation of water in the world.

On October 9, Laliberte’s 2-hour “poetical social” performance from high above everything, will feature contributions from links to 14 cities around the world.

This is a seminal event in the expansion of human cvilization and culture into the cosmos. Although the cause celebre is the need for clean water for people everywhere, equally striking is the performance in orbit by a famous, professional entertainer.

Hopefully the 2015 Maslow Window will allow more artists to perform in space. However, in the short term — after Shuttle retirement in 2010 or 2011 — there may be few Soyuz tourist seats available as they are taken by professional astronauts on their way to work in space.

If not, you’ve got only a couple more weeks. NASA says LCROSS — the Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite — will be a “smashing success” on October 9! (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one, but I promise to avoid impact-related puns from here on…)

Any Lunarians vacationing in the south polar Moon crater Cabeus A are headed for an exciting morning October 9 when a large NASA spacecraft crashes into it. Click .

Water on the Moon is big news today. For example, NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3), that hitched a ride almost a year ago onboard India’s Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, discovered both water and hydroxl molecules especially in the lunar polar regions (Science, September 24, 2009). According to Jessica Sunshine of the University of Maryland,

“Our analysis unequivocally confirms the presence of these molecules on the Moon’s surface and reveals that the entire surface appears to be hydrated during at least some portion of the lunar day.”

Although water and hydroxyl are present in larger abundances than expected and are a very exciting discovery, the actual water molecule fractions are only about 1000 ppm of lunar soil. Apparently hydrogen ions in the solar wind arriving at the lunar surface interact during the day with oxygen-rich minerals near the lunar surface to produce the observed water.

Regarding the M3 lunar surface water discovery, Carle Pieters of Brown University cautions that,

“When we say ‘water on the Moon,’ we are not talking about lakes, oceans, or even puddles. Water on the Moon means molecules of water and hydroxyl that interact with molecules of rock and dust spacifically in the top millimeters of the Moon’s surface.”

Of course, the lost lunar lakes (or even oceans) would be the most important and cost-effective resource we could find on the Moon — the holy grail for lunar scientists and others interested in studying, developing, and colonizing the Moon. Active international interest in lunar polar waters is consistent with accelerating human expansion into the cosmos as we approach the 2015 Maslow Window.

To detect these types of major water deposits on the Moon — suggested previously by Clementine (1994) and Lunar Prospector (1999) — NASA has developed LCROSS that will impact a Centaur upper stage at 2.5 km/sec on the Moon and create an ejecta cloud expected to expand 10+ km above the surface.

In a previous post, India and NASA Search for the Lost Lunar Lakes, you may want to check out my interview with Lunar Prospector PI Dr. Alan Binder as well as the challenging comments of two other lunar scientists, Drs. Paul Spudis and Stewart Nozette.

LCROSS is not exactly a subtle technique but it should meet our basic needs. On October 9, after venting any remaining fuel from Centaur, it will will impact the Moon, excavating at least 200 tons of lunar rock and soil. The Shepherding Spacecraft will rapidly descend into the plume making in situ measurements of its composition — searching for lunar water — and transmiting this data back to Earth, just before it creates a second impact plume on the Moon.

Funseekers on Earth — amateur astronomers and students — with 10″ or larger telescopes may be able to see the plume and participate in the discovery! Many public events are planned around the country or you can watch from the comfort of your video room at home on NASA TV. NASA also provides impact timing for those planning their own LCROSS Impact Party. See this link and have a blast!

Special thanks to one of my readers who heard Dr. Kaplan on the radio describing his book and thought it sounded like a Maslow Window.

If I were to recommend 3 well-researched books that wonderfully share the flavor of the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window, I would choose these:
1) All You Need is Love — The Peace Corps and the Spirit of the 1960s (1998), by Elizabeth Cobbs Hoffman, a historian at San Diego State University,

2) 1973 Nervous Breakdown — Watergate, Warhol, and the Birth of the Post-Sixties America (2006), by Andreas Killen, a historian from City College of New York, and

3) the most recent one, 1959 — The Year Everything Changed (2009) by Fred Kaplan, a columnist for Slate magazine with expertise in geopolitical issues and pop culture, as well as a PhD in political science from MIT.

Fred Kaplan’s new book, 1959 — The Year Everything Changed, is a preview of coming attractions for the new Space Age arriving near 2015. Click .

I’ve had the pleasure of commenting on how Professor Hoffman’s book captures the idealistic, transformative essence of the early 1960s zeitgeist with “Make Love, Not War”, “The belief in humanity’s inherent need for great meanings…”, “all of the Peace Corps is an act of faith…”, and “For the first time in human history, a majority of people … could have all of their needs and most of their desires met on demand.” Without even mentioning the Apollo Moon program she brilliantly evokes the feeling of 1960s ebullience! On the other side of the coin is Professor Killen’s book describing America’s “nervous breakdown” as the 1960s Maslow Window slammed shut — the title says it all. I will soon share a sampling of Killen’s profound and sobering insights in another post.

However, Dr. Kaplan’s book describes how the ebullience of the most recent Maslow Window began in the late 1950s. Of course it was “the year that everything changed.” If you haven’t read this book, you should get it.

According to Kaplan,

1959 was the year when the shockwaves of the new ripped the seams of daily life, when humanity stepped into the cosmos and also comandeered the conception of human life, when the world shrank but the knowledge needed to thrive in it expanded exponentially, when outsiders became insiders, when categories were crossed and taboos were trampled, when everything was changing and everyone knew it — when the world as we know it began to take form.

Wow! I was just a little kid then and that’s the way it felt, although I didn’t understand much of it until later. Remember that 1959 was the year that the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window splashed open and changed history. And, that 1959 is akin to 2015 — i.e., 1959 plus one 56 year long wave –when we can expect similar rapidly-paced social and technological upheavals.

Speaking of fast-paced, 1959 was the year of:

…the microchip, the birth-control pill, the space race, and the computer revolution; the rise of Pop art, free jazz, “sick comics”, the New journalism, and indie films; the emergence of Castro, Malcolm X, and personal superpower diplomacy; the beginnings of Motown, Happenings, and the Generation Gap — all bursting against the backdrop of the Cold War, the fall-out shelter craze, and the first American casualties of the war in Vietnam.

As we approach the “new 1959″ (coming near 2015), the analogous stream that Kaplan’s list triggered in me includes: transhumanist technology, expanding cable news, the blogosphere culture, extra-solar planets, new Castro-like figures, a possible new Cold War, and asymmetric terror-related wars in Iraq and Afghanistan…not to mention the new international space race!

And as Kaplan sketches below the 1960s frontier of JFK and Camelot, we can begin to envision the outlines of our new frontier (of the 2015 Maslow Window) taking shape now, nearly one long wave after 1959…

And tomorrow promised to be not just another day but a new dawn. The era’s rising young political star, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, would run for president on a slogan of “Leadership for the ’60s” — the first time that the future was defined in terms of a decade … (of) great change. Kennedy presented himself as a man … keen to explore “the New Frontier.”

The phrase was a reference to Frederick Jackson Turner’s classic essay of 1893, “The Frontier in American History,” which argued that the “American character” … was a product of the frontier’s vast emptiness, with its prospect of a continuous “expansion westward,” each step siring “new opportunities ” for conquest, settlement, and “perennial rebirth.”

By the 1950s, this frontier had long been filled and settled. The new frontier now lay in outer space, and its prospect of seemingly infinite expansion set off a new wave — a new way of seeing and experiencing on Earth.

The space program itself … spurred scientists to develop new technologies — most notably the microchip and faster, smaller computers — which would transform the fantasies of science fiction into the routines of daily life.”

I really like Kaplan’s book; it put me into “flow” where several hours passed without my noticing. Kaplan’s 1959… reminds me of what the 2015 Maslow Window will feel like.

Keep in mind that Turner’s essay on the American frontier was written in 1893, the same year as the famous financial panic that triggered a deep recession throughout the 1890s. But by 1899 prosperity began to return which triggered the extraordinary boom of probably the most ebullient decade in U.S. history — the Peary/Panama Maslow Window led by Teddy Roosevelt.

Based on the macroeconomic data and historical trends of the last 200 years, our projections for the 2015 Maslow Window suggest it will dwarf the 1960s!

The World Future Society’s journal The Futurist (Jan-Feb, 2009; David Gelles) highlights an intriguing analysis of Silicon Valley’s attraction to physical immortality. The people involved call themselves transhumanists which involves “part science, part faith, and part philosophy,” but their focus is “radical life extension and life expansion.”

Dr. Aubrey de Grey, a world-class anti-aging champion, is head of the Methuselah Foundation. Click .

Some believers envision using biotechnology to reach ages near 1000 years, or “freezing the terminally ill…” using cryonics, in hopes of “…a second opinion from a future doctor,” and ultimately even uploading a human mind onto a computer. Drivers of this ebullient movement include the Who’s Who of Silicon Valley; e.g., dot-com millionaires like Peter Thiel (co-founder and former CEO of PayPal), technologist Ray Kurzweil (prolific inventer and Chancellor/Founder of Singularity University), and biologist Aubrey de Grey (Cambridge Univ PhD and head of the Methuselah Foundation).

Here at 21stCenturyWaves.com, Silicon Valley transhumanism piques our interest because it points to the growth of early ebullient thinking expected to be a key driver of the 2015 Maslow Window.

Over the last 200+ years, widespread ebullience has been at the core of fleeting and rare, but spectacular decades that we call Maslow Windows. Rhythmic, twice-per-century major economic booms trigger transformative clusters of Great Explorations (e.g., Lewis and Clark), macro-engineering projects (e.g., Panama Canal), and even major wars (e.g., WW I). For a few brief shining moments, many ebullient members of society are catapulted to higher levels in Maslow’s Hierarchy where their expanded world views make great explorations and massive MEPs seem not only intriguing, but almost irresistible. Other ebullient individuals — who for personal reasons, do not ascend to elevated levels in Maslow’s Hierarchy — sometimes become involved in destructive pursuits, including major wars.

However, the key is ebullience — an intensely positive, almost giddy, feeling of confidence in the future — that drives Maslow Windows like the 1960s Apollo Moon program and the Lewis and Clark explorations over 200 years ago. The next one is expected near 2015, and the early ebullience of Silicon Valley transhumanism suggests it will be on time.

Interest in immortality was generated during the early stages of the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window by physicist Robert Ettinger’s 1962 book, The Prospect of Immortality. Ettinger asserted that “if a body were frozen shortly after death, future technologies would be able to revive the recently deceased.” Ten years later, as the Apollo Maslow Window was closing, Ettinger brought transhumanism into focus by suggesting that “rather than relying on cryonics to revive the dead, forthcoming technologies might make death obsolete.”

Whatever questions you may have about the people and/or the technologies, this is truly the essence of 1960s Camelot-style ebullience!

After the 1960s Maslow Window, nearly 200 bodies were frigidly ensconced in the Arizona vaults of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation. For a time Walt Disney was rumored to be among the elite 200 but he’s apparently buried in Forest Lawn Glendale near Los Angeles, not far from Michael Jackson’s new final resting place.

After the 1960s Maslow Window slammed shut, ebullience faded right on schedule as the long wave descended during the 1970s, 80s and into the 90s as “futurism gave way to materialism.” About the time of the Internet bubble burst (circa 2002) the famous Extropy Institute closed although scattered online discussions of transhumanism persisted.

During the early approach the 2015 Maslow Window, Alcor’s business was resurrected with over 800 ebullient members signing on to be frozen at death (and hopefully revived in the future), as the Silicon Valley became the “Galactic Center” for transhumanism, with several groups — e.g., Foresight Nanotech Institute, The Singularity Institute, the Immortality Institute — vying for prominence.

Today’s transhumanists see “the body as a machine, and the brain as a computer.” In a stunning display of ebullient techno-optimism, they believe that a Moore’s Law for medical technology will enable us to “fix, improve, and upgrade ourselves… (and) change the world.” And according to the popularizer of the most popular transhumanist concept — The Singularity — Ray Kurzweil explains that it is “a future period when the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed.”

The Transhumanists’ impressive early ebullience today virtually guarantees that the 2015 Maslow Window is right around the corner!

But even Kurzweil admits that The Singularity could ruin our entire afternoon if, for example, rogue nano-machines were to “disassemble everything on Earth…(or a) Cyborg army might decide to wipe out the human race.” And even Theil, a major transhumanist benefactor admits, “There’s always this big question about how much of this is too bizarre to be affiliated with.”

Others are more direct. For example, Johns Hopkins political scientist Francis Fukuyama labeled transhumanism “The world’s most dangerous idea…(because) the first victim of transhumanism might be equality.” Fearing a “new, high-tech eugenics,” Richard Haynes of the Oakland-based Center for Genetics and Society asks, “At what point do we start thinking of each other as humans and subhumans…Or humans and transhumans? And some wonder if there isn’t something sad about the incessant focus on avoidance of death in a Universe where “Life is a mystery and death is part of life.” It’s reminiscent of the first stage in Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross’ well-known “Five Stages of Grief“: denial.

However, all this may soon be beside the point. Indeed near 2015, when the next Maslow Window is expected to open, these issues will recede from our purview, because if the last 200 years are any guide, between about 2015 and 2025 we’ll be … simply … ebullient.

And for a brief few moments, like the transhumanists of today and the Maslow Window residents of the last 200 years, we’ll believe that almost anything is possible.

Some folks hope to jumpstart human expansion into the cosmos by privately funding bases on other worlds. One serious approach is by Dr. Charles Polk who recently founded The Martian Trust (J. British Interplanetary Soc., Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 187-197, May, 2009) with the sole intent of financing a self-sustaining outpost on Mars.

The Martian Trust, a new INGO founded by Charles Polk, bills itself as “The Virtual Society Building A Real World.” Click .

Polk has a PhD in economics from Caltech and is a former aerospace engineer who worked on Space Shuttle main engines. Frustration with the funding processes of public space programs led to his interest in economics. According to Polk,

The Martian Trust introduces a key principle to space exploration: An endeavor is best accomplished when it is conducted directly between people who can and want to buy it and people who can and want to sell it. I believe that there are tens of millions of people who will want to imagine, design, and finance, a Mars outpost through the processes of The Martian Trust. These people, these millions of patrons, with a hugh trust fund under their direction, will command the interest of industries capable of selling them a Mars outpost.

In case you’re new to this blog, The Martian Trust is a superb example of what we call “early ebullience.” Early because Polk’s visionary concept precedes the 2015 Maslow Window — the next major pulse of ebullient human expansion into the cosmos — by about 6 years, and ebullience because it marvelously symbolises the fundamental force — energized and focused human curiosity — driving near-term space colonization. Inspirational endeavors like The Martian Trust are exactly what we would expect to see as we approach the 2015 Maslow Window, an ebullient 1960s-style decade with a Camelot-like zeitgeist.

Currently, space-themed media including movies, TV programs, novels, and games, reach hundreds of millions of consumers but have no direct connection — neither the consumers nor the creators — with a real space program. Polk intends to change this. His international non-governmental organization (INGO), will focus on the Mars outpost goal, “The precise meaning of this goal and how to attain it are left to those who hold stakes in the INGO. Stakes are allotted based on the revenue supplied to a trust fund, which may come from two sources: donations and media businesses.” Polk is basically adopting and expanding the media revenue model of The National Geographic Society.

Even if The Martian Trust cannot ultimately generate the tens of billions of USD needed for an initial Martian outpost, it still might play an important role by financing one or more key systems (e.g., habitation modules) in a much larger international, governmental Mars initiative. This is what Otto Steinbronn and I were envisioning in the INTELSAT-style organization that we called InterMoon (or InterMars, depending on the destination); see P. 291, Figure 3 in “Interspace…”; Space Policy, Nov., 1992.

In winter of 2008, Dr. Polk formed a non-profit corporation in Washington state to initiate the development of The Martian Trust and validate its business model. The Trust’s motto is “The Virtual Society building a Real World.” To avoid any suspicions that The Martian Trust was formed to promote any particular aerospace industry or any specific country’s economic aspirations, Polk chose to base the INGO in New Zealand. Formal establishment of The Martian Trust in New Zealand awaits the concurrence of “high net-worth space exploration and science fiction enthusiasts” who will form the INGO’s cornerstone of patrons.

In this video, pop princess Britney Spears appears on the Late Show with David Letterman to present her “Top Ten Ways The Country Would Be Different If Britney Spears Were President.”

Britney has a proposal for future lunar fun-seekers… Click .

Most of her suggestions are pretty silly. However her #3 idea at 1:56 shows unusually good judgment. She proposes to “Challenge U.S. to put a nightclub on the moon by the end of the decade.”

This race to put the first nightclub on the moon will surely stimulate the economy, promote innovation, and lead to the ebullience this country needs to get back on the moon during the 2015 Maslow Window — this time with style! Personally, I would be thrilled to do my freakdancing in 1/6 gravity.

Good call President-To-Be Spears!

To see most of Britney, Click HERE.

This State of the Wave updates my January list of “10 Space Trends for 2009” and synthesizes new insights into Obama’s presidency as well as prospects for the approaching new Space Age in 2015.

This post marks a significant departure from my previous view of the 2015 Maslow Window. Indeed, the weight of new data and interpretations opens up the possibility that the 2015 decade may be even more than merely an analog of the spectacular 1960s Apollo Maslow Window.

With the Apollo Moon project’s continuing success and his unparalleled Great Society programs, Lyndon B. Johnson (2nd from left) was on track to become one of the most celebrated presidents in U.S. history, until Vietnam ended his career. Click .

The New York Times recently (8/23/09; Peter Baker) suggested — in “L.B.J. All the Way” — that Obama’s “presidency may ultimately be decided in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan.”

Let’s be honest: This is not the most insightful idea I’ve ever seen in the Times, but at least it was inspirational (to me) and resulted in “The State of the Wave…” that you see here.

The Times’ approach strikes me as typical of continued unfairness to Obama from most of the media, much like his supporters who, ever since the campaign began, unrealistically projected their near-messianic hopes and aspirations on him. Admittedly, Obama encouraged this premature hero worship, like any politician trying to get elected would, but for the Times to draw a parallel this early in Obama’s term between Afghanistan and the Vietnam War of President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) — who, along with President John F. Kennedy (JFK), presided over much of the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window — is really a stretch.

Before we dive in let me make a couple contextual points:

Because of impressive macroeconomic and historical evidence of the last 200 years, I have been compelled to admit to myself that, in some key ways, I am essentially an “economic determinist,” — but not in the usual sense. With me, it refers only to the fact that over the last 200+ years, long waves in the economy enable clusters of large engineering projects (e.g., Panama Canal) and great human explorations (e.g., Apollo Moon), as well as major wars (e.g., W. W. I), exclusively during rhythmic, twice-per-century pulses of ebullient activity (called Maslow Windows). This long-range perspective provides unique insights that fundamentally motivate this post, and most others on this blog.

Secondly, in 21stCenturyWaves.com the focus is on evaluating our technology and space forecasts in the context of key events and global trends using the 10 Wave Guides, not to express preferences for politicians or parties. We seek to identify what is most likely to happen, not what should happen or what we would like to happen. In essence, this strives to be a reality-based blog, even when we set sail into the far future.

This is such a remarkable time — economically and geopolitically — in U.S. and world history, that the last 200 years point to really only 2 likely Scenarios for the next 15 – 20 years:

Scenario 1: The 1960s John F. Kennedy (JFK) Replay … In which the economic and geopolitical trends of 1945 – 1960 reappear about one long wave later — between 2000 and 2015 — including the end of a world war, a great economic boom, and the election of a charismatic JFK-style Democratic president, that trigger a Super Apollo Maslow Window (2015 – 2025) featuring a Camelot-like zeitgeist.
Or…
Scenario 2: The 1900s Teddy Roosevelt (TR) Encore … In which the economic and geopolitical trends of 1888 – 1903 reappear about two long waves later — between 2000 and 2015 — including a financial panic followed by a major recession, and the election of a charismatic TR-style Republican president, that trigger a Super Apollo Maslow Window (2015 – 2025) featuring a Panama Fever-style zeitgeist.

Until recently, I have seriously considered only the “JFK Replay” as the nominal scenario for the 2015 Maslow Window, but recent economic and political events have convinced me to also consider the “TR Encore.”

It’s of particular interest that in both 2015 Maslow Window scenarios above, the key difference is which political party provides leadership, NOT whether major unprecedented technology and space activities (that I’ve estimated costing between $ 1 T and 3 T, current USD) will occur. In fact, based on macroeconomic data and historical trends of the last 200+ years, we can expect they will.

But why does the politics differ between the JFK Replay and the TR Encore?

History and common sense suggest that the state of the economy is a major influence on the outcome of U.S. presidential and congressional elections. This was concisely expressed by Bill Clinton’s staffer James Carville during the 1992 campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid.” In a similar vein, the Wall Street Journal (6/4/09) has suggested the Obama presidency will “rise or fall” on the economy.

In U.S. history, major wars can also sway elections. For example, the end of W. W. II in 1945 resulted in a post-War boom that was uninterrupted by a 1929-style financial panic, and culminated in the 1960s Apollo Maslow Window — a boom of unprecedented, widespread affluence.

To discern which Scenario is more relevant to the 2015 Maslow Window we compare the economic and geopolitical situation since 2000 with the 25 years preceding 1970 and also 1913.

Since 2000:
We experienced the financial Panic of 2008 and are still suffering from a major global recession. Although Iraq and Afghanistan have been traumatic wars, there was no major W. W. II – style global war in the 1980s or 1990s or since 2000.
1945 – 1970:
There was no 1929-style financial panic during this interval. The Vietnam War/Cold War was a major, international war for America.
1888 – 1913:
The financial Panic of 1893 was followed by the major 1890s recession; there was no major W. W. II – style global war during this interval.

It appears that the decade just before the Peary/Panama Maslow Window (1903-1913) of TR shares more key elements in common with our current trajectory toward 2015 than the decade just prior to the 1960 Apollo Maslow Window of JFK.

This long-term analysis presents us with a powerful window into the future and suggests real political dangers confront Obama.

For example:
1) Some commentators suggest that unless Obama is able to reduce unemployment below 10% by the next presidential election (2012) he risks defeat. In a previous post, I plotted recent unemployment rates against those near the Panic of 1893 (as estimated by Christina Romer; see #2 below). If the 1890s are a good economic model for current circumstances, the 2012 goal will be a close call.

2) Published economic research by the current head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors — Christina Romer — raises doubts about Obama’s policy of major government spending to end the recession. The Wall Street Journal (8/21/09; Alan Reynolds) quotes Professor Romer’s 1999 study (J. Econ. Perspect.) that between the pre-WW I era and the era of big government (post-WW II), “recessions have become only slightly less severe…and recessions have not become noticeably shorter,” in fact post-WW II recessions are one month longer. WSJ concludes that, based on economic history since 1887, “bigger government appears to produce only bigger and longer recessions.” If this is true, Obama’s large stimulus/bailout packages and large federal budgets will make the 2012 goal hard to achieve.

Obama’s current economic and political difficulties suggest that the chronology of the 1890s may be relevant to the 2015 Maslow Window.

1893 – 1897: Grover Cleveland, the first Democrat elected after the Civil War, became president during the 1890s recession right after the Panic of 1893. Although elected with a bi-partisan majority, his policies during the 1890s recession were generally unpopular. His party deserted him and nominated William Jennings Bryan in 1896.
1897 – 1901: Republican William McKinley defeated Bryan calling himself “the advance agent of prosperity.” In 1900, McKinley again campaigned against Bryan. While Bryan inveighed against imperialism, McKinley quietly stood for “the full dinner pail.” McKinley won again but was assassinated in September, 1901.
1901 – 1909: Theodore Roosevelt, not quite 43, became the youngest President in the Nation’s history. He brought new excitement and power to the Presidency, as he vigorously led Congress and the American public toward progressive reforms and a strong foreign policy. Roosevelt steered the United States more actively into world politics. He liked to quote a favorite proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick. . . . ” Aware of the strategic need for a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific, Roosevelt ensured the construction of the Panama Canal. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating the Russo-Japanese War, reached a Gentleman’s Agreement on immigration with Japan, and sent the Great White Fleet on a goodwill tour of the world. Some of Theodore Roosevelt’s most effective achievements were in conservation.

Teddy Roosevelt presided over perhaps the most ebullient time — the Peary/Panama Maslow Window — in U.S. history.

Here are the Bottom Lines:

1) Following decades with wildly different economic and geopolitical circumstances — the Maslow Windows of both TR and JFK featured spectacular, unprecedented great explorations (polar expeditions, Apollo to the Moon) and massive MEPs (Panama Canal, Apollo/Saturn V space infrastructure). They will be even greater during the 2015 Maslow Window.

2. Obama is not LBJ largely because of the vastly divergent economic worlds they each inherited. During the greatest economic boom up to that time, LBJ inaugurated the Great Society and successfully built the Apollo Moon program that JFK started. Such things are much more difficult for Obama to contemplate now because of the global recession and and its limited political vistas.

3. Obama faces significant economic and political challenges during the next few years. If he does not succeed, he may become Grover Cleveland instead of Lyndon Johnson, and Scenario #2 — the TR Encore — would be likely after 2015. Obama’s success would point to a JFK/Camelot-style Maslow Window.

21stCenturyWaves.com’s Tentative Forecast is … Given our current economic and geopolitical trajectory toward 2015 and the patterns of the last 200 years: Scenario #2 is more likely. However Obama still has time to reverse this trend and to shape the 2015 Maslow Window in his likeness.