Global Cooling on the Way

Russian scientist Khabibullo Abdusamatov says forget about global warming. He predicts global cooling by the middle of the 21st century.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory said temperatures would begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reached its peak, and that the coldest period would occur 15-20 years after a major solar output decline in 2035-2045.

Yes, I know. You young pups who have been raised on global warming scares feel like you just took a blow to the solar plexus.

But before the global warming fad it was generally accepted that the “Little Ice Age” at the middle of the last millennium may have had something to do with very low sunspot activity.

Abdusamatov said dramatic changes in the earth’s surface temperatures were an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, and resulted from variations in the Sun’s energy output and ultraviolet radiation.


The Northern Hemisphere’s most recent cool-down period of 1645-1705, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in Holland frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.

The mid-millennium decline in sunspot activity was called the Maunder Minimum. Of course, up until recently we had no way of reliably measuring fluctuations in “insolation,” the solar energy reaching the earth. But now we do, and scientists generally accept that the sun emits more radiation when it has a lot of sunspots and emits less radiation when it has few sunspots.

But what about the “hockey stick,” the graph in the UN’s report on global warming that shows surface temperatures pretty well flat during the last millennium up until the sudden increase in temperatures starting in 1850?

I’m glad you asked that. The hockey stick assumption seems odd, considering that in Britain, for instance, it was warm enough in the year 1000 to grow grapes, yet by the seventeenth century the River Thames regularly froze over in winter. How could global temperatures have been flat when reports so clearly indicate significant fluctuation? For a discussion of problems with the hockey stick graph, disussed here.

Maybe there is nothing to it. Maybe there won’t be any global cooling, and we can keep religiously worrying about global warming and spending big research bucks to study it. After all, the Russians would naturally prefer continued global warming to reduce the chill of those notorious Siberian winters. Maybe their forecast of global cooling is just wishful thinking.

Ask a Tough Question of a Senator...

As we all know, it is the objective news journalists who ask the tough questions. We know that because the journalists keep telling us that the whole point of the First Amendment and the special position given to the press is to allow them to ask the tough questions that others may not have the courage to put to powerful politicians and officeholders.

So when blogger Paul Mirengoff asked Senator Dick Durbin a searching question about the constitutionality of the president’s electronics surveillance operations the Senator responded with... a question about who Mirengoff represented. Oh really. Now that tells us a lot about the media business. Ask a politician a tough question and he asks: Who is your boss?

But here is the “dog that didn’t bark” moment, from Mark Tapscott, quoting an unnamed “veteran Senate GOP staffer:”

"The mainstream news media that covers Congress is tightly controlled by the House and Senate press galleries and they would never be so aggressive in pressing a Member of Congress. So this was big, it was unprecedented to have a blogger asking such questions. We need more bloggers up here asking questions because they aren’t controlled by the galleries."

Oh really. Do you mean to say, as veteran CBS 60 Minutes talent Mike Wallace used to say, that our tough questioning MSM reporters really aren’t? Never have been? Never will be?

So what’s the point? What’s the point of the First Amendment? What’s the point of these sacred “shield” laws to protect journalists from retribution?

We always wondered why the MSM is so gentle with the Democrats. Apparently it is not just that they are all liberals together. There is an unseen doggie leash restraining the reporters, the doggie leash held by their own colleagues in the press gallery, the ones that control the press credentials, the essential access to Congress.

If you want corroboration about the power of the press gallery and its credentialing of reporters to the US Congress, you could start with Joseph Farah’s fight to get WorldNetDaily.com accredited to report on our public servants on Capitol Hill.

Don't Be Victims, Muslims!

It is dispiriting to see how weak-kneed the liberals are about the Muslim rioting. Let a Christian conservative complain about the anti-Christian work of a gay artist and the 16-inch editorial guns of the MSM thunder with booming retorts. But apparently it is different when Muslims riot in the streets about blasphemy againt the prophet.

Instapundit Glenn Reynolds has a telling post from a Muslim emailer:

Coming from an all Muslim family, I’m forced to listen to the sense of perceived injustice of Muslims concerning the depiction of their revered prophet. It’s quite sickening.


I tell my family that that’s just how things work in a free society: while I don’t agree that the newspaper should have done something so culturally insensitive, they do have the right to do that, and attempting to make Danish society pay as a whole for it is utterly ridiculous.


It doesn’t matter, I’m told. It literally means nothing to them, because in their world, everything should revolve around them and their culture, and God made the world for Muslim Arabs to control.

Muslims need to understand that liberal “multiculturalism” in the west was designed by the left as a weapon with which to beat the bourgeoisie. But it has done nothing for its liberal clients, the “traditionally oppressed and marginalized,” except confirm them in a self-destructive culture of victimhood. You can see them everywhere in the cities of the welfare state, the impulsive, self-destructive underclass.

To make it in the global economy and global culture you need to offer yourself and your culture to the world in a spirit of humility and sacrifice. Demonstrating and posturing in rage and impotence will get you nowhere. That is what every group and every individual has to learn as they come to the city.

In the old tribal world, the people in the next village are your enemy. In the new global world everyone is your partner, perhaps your customer or your supplier.

That’s a very hard lesson to learn. And it looks like many Muslims are finding it impossible to get started.

Why The Economy is Doing Better Than You Think

Wonder why the US dollar manages to defy gravity with the twin deficits, the federal budget deficit and the merchandises trade deficit?

Maybe it’s because we aren’t counting our gross domestic product properly, according to staid Business Week.

Everyone knows the U.S. is well down the road to becoming a knowledge economy, one driven by ideas and innovation. What you may not realize is that the government’s decades-old system of number collection and crunching captures investments in equipment, buildings, and software, but for the most part misses the growing portion of GDP that is generating the cool, game-changing ideas. "As we’ve become a more knowledge-based economy," says University of Maryland economist Charles R. Hulten, "our statistics have not shifted to capture the effects."

The numbers used to generate GDP statistics were developed in the 1930s, and don’t really count many of today’s wealth building activities. For instance, your iPod reads “Designed by Apple in California Assembled in China.” So how do we count the value of the iPod?

Or look at Intel as it cranks up a fabrication plant in Israel. Intel doesn’t just build a new plant and hire a bunch of people.

To get its new plants running quickly, the chipmaker brings 800 or 900 employees from the new fab to spend a minimum of six months in Hillsboro, Ore., where Intel develops new production processes. By the time they return home, these people will have picked up not just the details of the process but also tribal knowledge -- the unwritten lore of how Intel works. With that info in their heads, they’re equipped to get the new factory up and running at high volume within a quarter, rather than taking a year or more. In economics speak, this is a classic transfer of human capital. So why isn’t it called an export?

Imagine this sort of thing happening all over the economy. Now you begin to understand why people are flocking to the United States from all over the world, why house prices are out of sight, and why investment money is pouring into US securities markets.

And don’t forget lowly Wal-Mart. It’s workers are the most productive retail workers in the world.

Go on, read the whole thing.

Ready for Polyamory Yet?

Same sex marriage, polygamy, polyamory. What are the liberals up to? For some time Stanley Kurtz has been following the movement to break up the traditional heterosexual monogamous marriage. In his latest article he focuses on a feminist activist law professor in Canada who is leading the fight to abolish marriage and replace it with

a modern, secular, “non-patriarchal” relationship system that would allow for marriage-like unions in any combination of number or gender.

The way that activists like Martha Bailey, Queens University law professor, propose to get to their non-patriarchal unions is by dismantling the exclusivity and privileged position of heterosexual monogamous marriage by advocating same-sex marriage and polyamorous relationships.

Well, you can read all about it in Kurtz’s article, but let us think about what these activists are missing.

Suppose they are wrong in supposing that monogamous marriage is “patriarchal,” that is, oppressive to women. The argument of conservative writers on marriage like George Gilder in his Men and Marriage is that the opposite is true. Far from oppressing women, monogamous marriage is a profoundly democratic institution that binds men to the mothers of their children and civilizes them out of the gang and into productive work. It is, of course, women that civilize these men, and the work of civilization is a hard and “oppressive” job. But without monogamous marriage, Gilder argues, boys mature into aggressive predators that do little work and prey on the flocks of single women that are created by the collapse of marriage.

The advocates of non-heterosexual marriage are high-status women who see a vision of a more relaxed, more creative world where people are free to pursue their personal vision of sexual relationship and experience. But suppose that the relaxed, creative world is instead a hell on earth? It is not as if we don’t have clear indications that it will, with the growth of violent underclasses throughout the western world where traditional marriage has broken down under the warped financial incentives of the welfare state.

And then there are the children. Children seem to want a mother and a father—their mother and their father—and they get pretty angry when they don’t get them.

And when women have less sexual security they have less children. We are finding out in the aftermath of the sexual revolution that the twenty years of female fecundity is not all that long. When a woman takes a couple of detours through graduate school or a live-in relationship or a failed marriage she ends up having less children than she might have instinctively preferred. When she gets to the other side of 50 she regrets that she didn’t have those children. But then it is too late.

It is easy to get angry with the same-sex marriage movement, their mendacity and the blindness of their cloying elitism. But things are really more serious than that. As we will shortly find out.

What About The Democrats?

Everyone is counting out the Democrats this week after their defeat in the Battle of the Court. Talk show hosts are delightedly signing up for their funeral.

For Tony Blankley the liberal party has become the nihilist party. For him the defining moment of that transformation was the Democrats cheering that nothing had been done to fix Social Security.

Their collective decision to cheer the failure of the body politic to provide for sufficient revenues to pay the benefits was an act of historic shame for the Democratic Party.

Considering that Democrats have run on protecting Social Security from evil Republicans for over half a century, it is a curious thing to cheer at leaving Social Security out in the street. But hatred is what defines today’s Democratic Party.

Until George Bush became president the Democrats, for better and for worse, were a liberal party. Deformed by hatred of the current president, the Democrats have become a nihilist party.

Even the kindly Peggy Noonan is disturbed.

Conservatives are always writing about the strains and stresses within the Republican Party, and they are real. But the Democratic Party seems to be near imploding, and for that most humiliating of reasons: its meaninglessness. Republicans are at least arguing over their meaning.

The Democratic Party has changed into a party of anger and venom.

The venom is bubbling on websites like Kos, where Tuesday afternoon, after the Alito vote, various leftists wrote in such comments as "F--- our democratic leaders," "Vichy Democrats" and "F--- Mary Landrieu, I hope she drowns." The old union lunch-pail Democrats are dead, the intellects of the Kennedy and Johnson era retired or gone, and this--I hope she drowns--seems, increasingly, to be the authentic voice of the Democratic base.

Where did this venom and anger come from? It was created by the Democratic Party leadership itself, in the Clinton impeachment when the Clintons decided to fight and sent out their attack dogs to rile up the base, and it was reinforced after the 2000 election when, after the Supreme Court spoke, the Democrats decided not to accept the result with a good grace but keep their base riled up for what they expected would be smashing victories in 2002 and 2004.

Now the leadership are reaping the whirlwind, for the Angry Left that they created for tactical reasons to defend President Clinton and to help boost turnout has become a political force in its own right. It is no longer a tool of the party leaders but is an authentic political movement that is demanding a seat at the table.

Let us not count the Democrats out. That would be a fatal error. But they really have a problem with their crazies. As Noonan says:

Republicans have crazies. All parties do. But in the case of the Democrats--the leader of their party, after all, is the unhinged Howard Dean--the lunatics seem increasingly to be taking over the long-term health-care facility. Great parties die this way, or show that they are dying.

It is, of course, the great achievement of William F. Buckley that he had the courage and the wisdom to read right-wing crazies like the John Birch Society out of the conservative movement. Who will step up and read the left-wing crazies out of the Democratic Party?

Twas a Famous Victory

Republicans enjoyed a well-earned victory lap last night, giving President Bush a manly cheer as he addressed the Congress and the nation. “It was a grand night for celebrating,” wrote Stephanie Mansfield.

For all the quagmire talk coming out of the MSM the President has had an astonishing year, winning at the important things while stumbling on the unimportant things.

He achieved three elections in Iraq (think of that!), continued robust economic growth founded upon the taxs rate cuts of 2003, and he ended the Bork era by nominating two conservatives to the Supreme Court and obtaining the advice and consent of the Senate to do so.

The Democrats decided to give battle on the Supreme Court nominations and they were soundly beaten. In retrospect, it is easy to see that everything turned out in the president’s favor. First he nominated John Roberts, a man that the Democrats could never get a grip on. Then he nominated Harriet Miers who turned out to be a curious diversion, reminding Republicans just what the long march through the judicial institutions of the last twenty years was all about. Then he nominated Italian-American Samuel Alito (it translates from the Italian as “Breath” according to Google), and the Democrats attacked. They sent in the Old Guard, just as Napoleon did at Waterloo, with drums rolling. But even the Old Guard of Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Schumer could not break the Republican square. La garde recule! came the cry, and the Kossites broke up in rage and confusion. It was a famous victory.

After the battle, what then? What do we do next to continue the long march to transform this great nation from Entitlement America to Ownership America, from rights-obsessed adolescence to mature self-government?

Take a look in the mirror. The next step is up to you and me.