I think Ely is correct, but mostly in the context of an actually majoritarian political system which it can police to assure continued adherence to democratic and egalitarian principles. I think the Court can act to further majoritarian democracy in an undemocratic system -- the Warren Court did that quite a bit -- but the Court's history overall does not encourage that view. And there are obvious limits on use of the judiciary anyway, the Senate being the elephant in the room.
 

Primus: "In the (modal, widely distributed) view of these students, Ely’s picture of the “normal” process of governmental decisionmaking is, more or less, a fantasy. It just isn’t true, my students said—not even close to true—that the default decisionmaking process, in the absence of judicial interference, is one in which majoritarian preferences are permitted to control based on an electoral process in which everyone’s preferences are, as an initial matter, weighted equally. In reality, elections are shaped by money and skewed toward the interests of the wealthy. In reality, electoral districts are heavily gerrymandered, thus preventing democratic responsiveness. In reality, the United States Senate makes a mockery of majoritarianism at the national level. And so on."

No mystery. Democrat mandarin kids repeating Democratic Party talking points they heard during their teen years after Obama alienated middle America, reduced the Democrats to their urban core and placed the party at an electoral disadvantage in a partly geography based electoral system.

Ely: “The Constitution has proceeded from the sensible assumption that an effective majority will not unreasonably threaten its own rights, and has sought to assure that such a majority not systematically treat others less well than it treats itself. It has done so by structuring decision processes at all levels in an attempt to ensure, first, that everyone’s interests will be represented when decisions are made, and second, that the application of those decisions will not be manipulated so as to reintroduce in practice the sort of discrimination that is impermissible in theory.”

Not remotely. In reaction to state legislatures running roughshod over individual rights, including those of majorities, the Founders placed three major leashes on majority rule: (1) limited powers, (2) a bill of rights further limiting granted powers, then (3) the requirement of effective supermajority rule to exercise what powers were left.

Sandy: Will it be the case that by 2024, candidates running for the presidency and describing themselves as "revolutionaries" or even serious proponents of "structural reform" will actually address the kinds of structural reforms that require coming to terms with the defects of our Constitution. Will it be like the wonderful election of 1912, which featured serious constitutional reformers (and the most accomplished defender of the Old Order, i.e., William Howard Taft)? Or will we continue to pretend that anything else than radical constitutional reform can make a "progressive politics" truly possible?

At least you recognize that our Constitution does not permit the full bore totalitarian hybrid of socialism and fascism being pitched by proponents of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

Of course, the fact our Constitution expressly forbids nearly all of the current progressive state never stopped a totalitarian-lite political class from imposing it. The judges they appointed dishonestly employed judicial review to erase or rewrite any constitutional obstacles. The progressives knew, if you apparently do not, they did not have a chance in hell of amending the Constitution to accommodate their preferred policies.
 

Prof. Segall (Dorf on Law) wrote a book about originalism and on the Supreme Court itself & voiced an opinion that the Supreme Court should be much more restrained on how it practices judicial review. He did not really engage with Ely's argument at all. Not sure why & it was a problem given he was dissenting from a view of his fellow liberals.

I read Ely's book some time back and some other of his writings (he also was a vegetarian) such as his flawed criticism of Roe v. Wade (though he later supported Planned Parenthood v. Casey & actually sent a thank you note to the plurality justices; he also opposed the Hyde Amendment on equal protection grounds). I think Mark's comment is basically correct as far as that goes. As to the past comment, things like partisan gerrymandering and money in politics would be something that could be covered by the courts.

I don't recall how Ely covered the Senate (except to the degree he said flaws in representative democracies existed but it is not like the courts were more representative) and it does have to be factored in. Charles Black Jr. wrote a book entitled "A New Birth of Freedom" that supported a strong view of judicial review to protect constitutional rights (he like Ely didn't like "substantive due process" but thought the Ninth Amendment and other means were in place to protect what is sometimes labeled unenumerated rights) and noted that in practice power is often practiced by unrepresentative ways. Some single sheriff or something. In that respect, citing the courts are undemocratic is rather limited without more detail.

Anyway, if Rhode Island blocking a funding amendment was asinine in the 1780s, the current malapportioned Senate is as well. The idea is that we are stuck with it. If we can deal with women voting (seen as absurd once upon a time) etc., maybe we can deal with that too.
 

As always, I appreciate Mark's and Joe's thoughtful comments. There is a deep paradox about Ely: One the one hand, he was an apostle of judicial restraint with regard to ordinary legislation because he in fact had quite optimistic views about the democratic nature of the political system overall. On the other hand, to the extent that there were in fact "democratic deficits" in the system, he relied on the Court, as in the reapportionment decisions say, to respond to them and to move the system overall closer to the democratic ideal. What he never confronted--and here, of course, he was altogether typical of the legal academy, given its obsession with courts and what I call the "litigated Constitution"--were the deep structural flaws of the Constitution that were beyond clever judicial fixing, with the Senate being Exhibit A and the Electoral College being another obvious example. To the extent "we" (whoever exactly "we" are) place our faith in the judiciary to perfect our constitutional order, we will be disappointed, not only because the judges do not necessarily share our own views of what counts as an imperfection, but also because of the obvious fact that there really are limits on what can count as a plausible constitutional argument fit for judicial resolution. The fact that waiting eleven weeks after election day to inaugurate the successor Donald Trump is criminally stupid does not count as a valid legal argument that would justify a court in evicting him the moment it is clear that the lout has lost. But, as I have repeatedly, and tiresomely, argued, the hopelessness of constitutional reform has generated a general culture either of denial or of despair about its possibility.
 

I see when it first came out that SL reviewed the book ("Judicial Review and the Problem of the Comprehensible Constitution") but the only version I found online is blocked by a paywall (Hein Online) though you can see the first page.


 

Sandy: There is a deep paradox about Ely: One the one hand, he was an apostle of judicial restraint with regard to ordinary legislation because he in fact had quite optimistic views about the democratic nature of the political system overall. On the other hand, to the extent that there were in fact "democratic deficits" in the system, he relied on the Court, as in the reapportionment decisions say, to respond to them and to move the system overall closer to the democratic ideal.

Ely was attempting to justify the Warren Court and missed the primary purpose of the Constitution and the rule of law - limit government to protect liberty.

What he never confronted--and here, of course, he was altogether typical of the legal academy, given its obsession with courts and what I call the "litigated Constitution"--were the deep structural flaws of the Constitution that were beyond clever judicial fixing, with the Senate being Exhibit A and the Electoral College being another obvious example.

Not really. "Clever judicial fixing" affirmed a facially unconstitutional workaround whereby progressive Congresses delegate increasing swaths of absolute power to an unelected progressive bureaucracy, thereby mooting the supermajoritarian checks of the Senate and POTUS when the progressives lose control of those bodies.
 

Bart: "At least you recognize that our Constitution does not permit the full bore totalitarian hybrid of socialism and fascism being pitched by proponents of Medicare for All and the Green New Deal."

The Arabic spammers add more value to this blog. In that spirit, let's try reading Bart from right to left:
"Deal New Green the and All for Medicare of proponents by pitched being fascism and socialism of hybrid totalitarian bore full the permit not does Constitution our that recognize you least at."
Makes just as little sense.
 

James:

Do you deny that the proposal to nationalize all health insurance and thereby healthcare is socialism?

Do you have any concept of what a Green New Deal would entail? In order to reduce emissions to zero in a decade or so, the government will have to direct nearly every facet of our economy similar to what Nazi Germany did to covert the European economy to support total war. The last example of a similar project to reverse modernity was the Khmer Rouge's Cambodian killing fields.

Now, where does the Constitution allow such totalitarianism?
 

Blogger Bart DePalma said...
James:

Do you deny that the proposal to nationalize all health insurance and thereby healthcare is socialism?

Do you have any concept of what a Green New Deal would entail? In order to reduce emissions to zero in a decade or so, the government will have to direct nearly every facet of our economy similar to what Nazi Germany did to covert the European economy to support total war. The last example of a similar project to reverse modernity was the Khmer Rouge's Cambodian killing fields.

Now, where does the Constitution allow such totalitarianism?

For the people who think that Bart isn’t really dumb enough to believe this nonsense? Trust me. I’ve been reading his crap for years. He’s definitely that dumb.
 

bb:

Putting aside the complete nonsense that the use of fossil fuels will ”destroy the planet,” do any of you folks actually think about how your preferred totalitarian government would achieve a Green New Deal?

Decreeing the replacement of fossil fuel engines with batteries means all heavy machinery used to farm, mine, construct, ship and fly will no longer operate and vehicles of any type will become rare because the rare earths used to make batteries are, well, rare.

Banning fossil fuels for heavy industry means material refining, fabrication and recycling ends. You will not be able to build the solar panels and wind farms you plan to use as an alternative energy source.

Assuming your proposed totalitarian government can conjure solar panels and wind farms out of thin air, they would only operate part time when the sun shone and the wind blew. You will not have the batteries to store the energy for nighttime and inclement weather because, once again, rare earths are rare.

The result would be famine and poverty unseen in western nations since the dark ages.
 

they would only operate part time when the sun shone and the wind blew.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 8:25 PM

Yes, because the wind and sun are only functioning part of the time. We are in trouble when the sun is shut down for it's 5 billion year check-up.

And those are the only possible options.

How do you find your way home every day?


 

"...rare earths are rare."

The "rare" in "rare earths" does not mean what you seem to believe it does.

"World Resources: Rare earths are relatively abundant in the Earth’s crust, but minable concentrations are less common than for most other ores. In North America, measured and indicated resources of rare earths were estimated to include 2.7 million tons in the United States and more than 15 million tons in Canada."

https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-rare-earths.pdf

"Banning fossil fuels for heavy industry means material refining, fabrication and recycling ends."

This also may be of interest:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a28748306/worlds-largest-electric-vehicle-dump-truck/

and:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a30873539/electric-mining-truck/

Solar, wind, and bio-fuels along with NG as a transition and thorium/nuclear are doable now.
 

James, remember Bircher Bart cried loudly and often that the ACA had already nationalized healthcare as socialism. He doesn't just cry wolf a lot, he's got a daily reminder on his phone to do so. This is not a serious man.
 

Bircher Bart says a lot of silly things about 'bureaucracy' (for example it's not 'absolute,' different executives, Congress, and the judiciary commonly change and deny bureaucratic efforts, or that's it's unconstitutional, actually no text forbids delegation, or even that it's a bad idea to rely on bureaucrats, it's a great idea, they're experts in what they're doing providing the best and consistent execution of the law), but a not oft challenged one is this silly idea that bureaucrats are a monolithic 'mandarin' class of Deep State Democrats. Typical unnuanced nonsense from our nattering nabob: for example the largest federal agency is...the Department of Defense, that hotbed of liberal mandarins!

This is not a serious man.
 

Aall:

Battery vehicles are only a tiny fraction of our overall vehicle fleet and Tesla is already projecting a rare earth shortage. This projection does not include the masses of batteries required to store solar and wind power in a fossil fuke free economy.

Your test dump truck requires constantly going up and down hills to operate.
 

Anyone with a clue knows governments claiming to fight “caimat change” are not serious about zeroing out fossil fuels. See the EU.

Rather, “climate change” is a pretext for further expansion of government power over the economy.
 

Mr. W:

Obamacare is German zwangswirtschaft socialism, where the government directs an industry like an owner rather than nationalizing it.

Absolute power is the exercise of legislative, executive and judicial.

Federal regulations and guidances dwarf the US Code and Congress has only reversed less than 1% of the regulatory kudzu.
 

Anyone with a clue knows governments claiming to fight “caimat change” are not serious about zeroing out fossil fuels. See the EU.

Rather, “climate change” is a pretext for further expansion of government power over the economy.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:25 AM

Blankshot, this is gibberish.
 

Yes, typical conspiracy theory gibberish. All the thousands of scientists from all the hundreds of different institutions and agencies around the world are just involved in a massive conspiracy theory to foster world socialism, but country lawyer prone to goof after goof (I guarantee Romney victory! WMDs are certainly in Iraq! Parnas and Cohen are being prosecuted as a hit on Trump! There's zero evidence Trump ever asked for the Bidens to be investigated!, etc) is the guy who *really* knows what's going on. This is not a serious man.
 

bb:

I'll draw this out in crayon for you.

The EU claims it is working to stop climate change, yet its emissions are not changing appreciably and the governments are taking no steps to eliminate all emissions in a decade or whenever AOC and the Swede teen propagandist claims the world will end. However, the Brussels and EU national bureaucracies are using climate change as a pretext to massively increase regulation of their stagnant economies.

You are being gamed.
 

"Obamacare is German zwangswirtschaft socialism"

Shorter Bircher Bart: that was a wolf, and so is this! The wolf is always coming, or always been here, or something!

"Absolute power is the exercise of legislative, executive and judicial."

That's not of course what absolute means. It means unlimited or checked. By his own admission Congress alone (not considering the checks from different executives and the judiciary) can and has checked 'the bureaucracy' so Bircher Bart is lying/ignorant whenever he uses this propagandist terminology. This is not a serious man.



 

I'll draw this out in crayon for you.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 11:47 AM

Blankshot, piling more gibberish on top of your original claim isn’t really helping you. The evidence for climate change is overwhelming. The fact that governments are not doing enough to stop carbon emissions is not proof, or even evidence, that anyone is being gamed. It just means that more has to be done.


 

As to the OP, I think people are right to distrust 'democracy' in its U.S. form because of the many anti democratic features of our system (Senate, EC, territories denied representation,). My problem with Sandys ideas for constitutional change is that these very features would play an outsized role in any such attempt (change would have to go through the egregiously apportioned states).
 

Bircher Bart consistently displays poor logic. It's the thing driving so many of his goofs and incoherence (like his 'analysis' that Obama was going to lose in his bid for a second term and then just recently arguing that Trump was going to win because most Presidents win a second term!) . His reply to bb is essentially 'Jane has gone on a diet, but she's yet to lose appreciable weight therefore the only conclusion is she's trying to keep control over what everyone in her household does!'

This is not a serious man.
 

"How do you find your way home every day"

It's probably why he lives in a rural area, makes it easier to find the one of the few homes he resides in.

These poll numbers are looking great for McCain!
 

Anyone who has total faith in the current state of the federal representative government (and, by derivation, many of the state governments which were deliberately modeled after it) has been living under a rock since the onset of the 70's, if not before, or engaging in wishful thinking.

What worries me (and should worry any thoughtful, observant person) is that the bounce has gone out of the bungie, as far as its capacity to self-correct. Short of a catastrophe on the order of the Great Depression, it seems unlikely that the rural and more insular areas are likely to pull their heads out of the sand and notice that things are going in a frightening direction. I know someone from a farming area, who has firsthand knowledge and experience with the fact that traditional farming methods simply aren't working like they used to, due to the effects of climate change, who is a climate change denier. How do you deny it when you are sitting on an island in a sea of rising water? (This is pretty much literal: climate change has caused a dramatic increase in flooding rains in that area.)

What would it take to get through to such people?

 

Mista Whiskas is far too kind. As for me, I prefer to use the limited time left to me for political argument to engage with people who show some signs of willingness to adjust their opinions in response to the facts and arguments I might deploy, or a track record on their side to which I might respond in the same way. Bart does not meet these tests, or even close. He's just a random crank ranting on a soapbox that this blog, for some reason, continues to supply him with.
 

What would it take to get through to such people?

# posted by Blogger C2H5OH : 12:26 PM

We probably need whoever is calling the shots at Faux News to come to his senses.

Fortunately, I think that younger people are more aware of the danger. They just need to vote.

So, basically, we’re screwed.
 

Well, James, Mr. W. is a conservative leaning sort and it takes him time. He started with extended attempts to argue while BB, Shag et. al. were basically dismissive with "pet" names. Mr. W. still mixes in some debate but has his own pet names. Being a cat, pet names is natural for him.
 

My problem with Sandys ideas for constitutional change is that these very features would play an outsized role in any such attempt (change would have to go through the egregiously apportioned states).

The concern there would seem to be that such powers that be would set forth changes that we would be stuck with and thus make things worse. So, policy-related changes with more flexibility might be more appropriate. It's a tricky business.

I am someone who thinks we need to apply the Constitution per current practice with history taken into consideration. Such consideration at times is helpful. So, e.g., as I referenced, there was an attempt of mild change in the 1780s that was blocked because a small minority resisted amendment to the Articles of Confederation.

This somewhat ironically led to a greater change, including an amendment process wherein only a supermajority was necessary. As to the Senate, that too was actually an advancement. The original process was to give each state one vote. The replacement was a body where each state had two, but each senator still might vote separately. Plus, you have a body wherein the population was apportioned somewhat by popular numbers though in practice not quite so much.

Some years ago, I suggested that the Senate might not be completely by population; perhaps, some compromise could be formed where there is a minimum that still gives certain states a plus but much more equitable than it is today. Someone found this unprincipled. But, compromise is about making such choices. And, in the lifetime of people here, huge changes occurred there, if with compromises.

With such a mindset, we should still think big. Talk about statehood of D.C. (which might be a way to in a backdoor way make the Senate more representative of certain groups) should not make us forget about the millions of others not being represented.

As to the OP, perhaps law professors are conservatively minded too, geared to working "within the system." But, that doesn't end the conversation since "the system" has problems that should be factored in. Thus, e.g., there was a traditional presumption of freedom that allowed discretion even if certain provisions could have been applied in a way that advanced slavery. Too often, the Constitution was applied the other way.

Prof. Victoria Nourse, who was a filibustered Obama court of appeals nominee, also has written about how courts should factor in the legislative process. Others want to be "textualists" in such a way that add insult to injury without it actually being compelled by what the system created. We saw this in the King v. Burwell ACA dissent and again another Affordable Care Act case where one side's position is so bad that even some who supported the last challenge think these people are idiots.

Things like the lame duck period are constitutionally mandated; law professors can as much as anyone else critique them. They also can work within the system in some ways to deal with the situation in a way that is not just "ignoring the law." There is a lot of play in the joints.
 

Mr. W: All the thousands of scientists from all the hundreds of different institutions and agencies around the world are just involved in a massive conspiracy theory to foster world socialism

You managed to combine a lie as well as the red herring and the citation to authority logical errors in one sentence. Not bad.

The dozens or hundreds (not thousands) of scientists offered by the UN and other agencies on the climate change reports generally had nothing to do with the report and are often placed on these lists without their knowledge. The reports are actually citing to some work performed by the listed scientist, which may or may not act support the actual findings.

These reports offer political findings, projections and remedies negotiated between the very same world bureaucracies who will be given power over the world economy under proposals such as the Green New Deal. Nearly every scientist who is genuinely active in negotiating these reports is a member of a bureaucracy or a government contractor/grant dependent.

These bureaucracies are so confident in their findings, projections and remedies that they actively oppose efforts to compel public disclosure of the same.

Power, status and literally billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies buys a great deal of conformity.



 

Blankshot, you know what else causes a great deal of conformity? Overwhelming evidence.
 

Bircher Bart displays more of his usual problems.

First, the appeal to authority is about *deductive* arguments. It simply means that an argument isn't valid or sound based on where it came from. But as an *inductive* matter appeals to relevant authorities are totally appropriate and, indeed, of the utmost prudence. If 99 plumbers tell you, a non-plumber, your problem is X you'd be a fool to go with the 1 who said Y.

Secondly, the consensus on climate change is not found only in 'the dozens or hundreds (not thousands) of scientists offered by the UN and other agencies on the climate change reports.' It's reflected in the adoption of statements on the issues by many professional scientific associations which indeed have thousands of members and also in literally hundreds of journal articles by thousands of researchers working for a variety of types of organizations across many nations.

Bircher Bart has an *elementary* level of knowledge and then combines it with his overconfidence, sloppy logic and bias to come to another faulty, demonstrably stupid decision. This is not a serious man.

Now, here's another example of an inductive argument: what's more likely, that law-school trained (if that) rural lawyer or thousands of scientists of many fields, organizations and nations know what the heck is going on with something like the climate? Bircher Bart actually thinks the former. This is not a serious man.
 

bb is correct that the vast amount of misinformation piled up by the huge conservative media apparatus is largely to blame for the kind of ignorant silliness people like Bircher Bart offers up.

Conservatives have long been involved in attacking expertise and intellectualism as suspicious and biased. This makes them comfortable accepting even the goofiest, most strained conspiracy theories (that 'world government' has convinced scientists around the world to go into a ruse to promote world socialism, I mean, you couldn't sell that as a sci-fi conspiracy because it's so nutty) rather than accept an 'inconvenient' truth for their ideology.


 

When I say Bircher Bart is not a serious man it's not just a mock, it's a long come to conclusion. A key component of Bircher Bart's commentaries here is a complete unwillingness to re-examine the propagandist, hyperbolic claims he regularly makes and present them in a more careful or nuanced way. So Bircher Bart has to come on year and year out and say some nonsense about 'bureaucratic mandarins' even if it's pointed out that such language is not just 'charged' it's just careless (obscuring, for example, that the biggest employer of 'bureaucrats' is the DoD, hardly a hotbed of 'progressive socialists'); he has to come out and say 'absolute bureaucracy' even though this does violence to the definition of 'absolute,' etc. I mean, think about it: he could make 99% of his point without such careless hyperbole. He could say 'the bureaucracy increasingly includes a lot of people from similar social backgrounds which might make them out of tough with most Americans.' He could say 'we defer too much to federal agencies in interpreting and administering the laws.' These would be more careful, thoughtful, well, more *serious* ways to talk to other people. But Bircher Bart can't do it. He's shown this for years. He doesn't want to or can't be serious here. He *has* or is *insistent* on talking as an unserious person because he is determined to use or unable to not think or use language chosen for it's *propagandist* value.

Again, to take a more concrete example of how Bircher Bart thinks and expresses himself here his post about the prosecution of Parnas and Cohen is exemplary. He brought the subject up, and he confidently spun a theory that their prosecutions were attempts by 'deep state' prosecutors to engage in a political hit on Trump by stacking charges to get them to divulge dirt on him. He took no care or thought into looking into who was running the prosecutions. He just had a deep conviction that things harming a GOP official must be rotten + an ignorance of all the facts + an overconfidence and carelessness that kept him from realizing he likely didn't have all the facts + sloppy reasoning and he presented this theory. A theory that crumbled in 15 seconds after I looked up who was running the prosecutions and their backgrounds (Trump appointee, donor and campaign worker).

What was Bircher Bart's response? Was it to re-examine himself, how he could have made such a mistake? Admitted to his error and tried to be more careful, more measured, in future expressions of that sort?

No. None. He followed the mantra of the moronic Palin that has become defining for much of the conservative movement: 'Don't retreat, reload!' True to form, he just went to the next poo to fling on the wall, hoping the next thing stuck. I mean, here he is pushing a literal 'world order' conspiracy theory!

I would welcome a serious conservative voice on this blog. Someone who made careful, measured claims and arguments, who showed any willingness or ability to re-examine his claims and arguments or at least his language. But Bircher Bart (and Brett) are not those. These are not serious men. And conservatism is increasingly becoming equally unserious as a movement. To quote their current intellectual leader, Sad!
 

bb:

(1) There is zero correlation between the bouncing raw temperature data and exponentially increasing human CO2 emissions.

Even the statistically manipulated temperature data shows a nice smooth temperature trend line, when none exist in nature, has no correlation to exponentially increasing human CO2 emissions. Most notably, human CO emissions over the past twenty years equal all human CO emissions since the industrial revolution, but the derived temperature trend line has not moved apart from the occasional el nino periods.

Absent correlation, it is impossible to have causation.

(2) Because there is no correlation, every single climate model assuming such a correlation has proven wrong over time. This is not a mixed bag of results calling for further study, but rather a complete failure disproving the underlying AGW hypothesis.
 

"The concern there would seem to be that such powers that be would set forth changes that we would be stuck with and thus make things worse."

Yes, that's it. Any change to the Constitution would have to go through the same anti-democratic set ups that Sandy (rightly) complains about, so I don't see why we should think that would improve those things. Indeed, it would probably make it worse.

I do agree that those of us who would like to see democracy actually practiced in our system should push for where it can be done under the current system, such as statehood for territories that have populations that dwarf several states.

But I wouldn't hold my breath because right now there's an asymmetrical warfare going on between the two political parties and sides. The GOP and conservatives are playing a hardball where all they care about is power. This is why their defenses of Trump were 98% intellectually laughable and/or morally deplorable (remember, the *first* and oft-returned to reaction of our two Birchers here was literally 'well if he was using his power to force Ukraine into investigating the Bidens that's great because what Biden did was clearly fishy (Bircher Brett) or 'prima facie' guilt (Bircher Bart)). After 2008 people started to write post-mortems for the GOP, many said they had to adapt to appeal to changing demographics or cease to exist. I think this made their base take things as a existential crisis and they decided to sacrifice all means for the end of keeping the GOP as a conservative institution that need not change the ways it was putting off women, minorities, etc, but instead could double down on it. And this meant playing the game to win by any means necessary (as often is the case, since every accusation is a confession, they often defend[ed] these measures by accusing the other side of 'cheating').

Take an example: the recently victorious Democrats in Virginia, who were punished under an obvious GOP gerrymander when the GOP was in charge (for about a decade no Republican won state wide office there but during the same time the majority of state and Congressional seats were GOP), actually have moved to follow through on principles by getting independent redistricting reform. Can anyone imagine a GOP legislature doing the same? Likewise they're going to deny things that make obvious democratic sense, like stopping the federal disenfranchisement of territories with populations many times several states, willing to offer up whatever intellectually laughable/morally deplorable arguments in defending the one thing they now believe in: partisan entrenchment.
 

Bircher Bart is the brilliant statistician who brought you: these poll numbers are great for John McCain! I guarantee a Romney victory! how could anyone think a citizenship question could cause any undercourt? etc.

He literally has to know he has little relevant training, education, accomplishment in this and the many other areas he's pontificating on yet he still confidently asserts that he knows something that all those thousands of scientists do not.

This is not a serious man.
 

All anyone needs to evaluate Bart's truthfulness is to ask whether he speaks from knowledge or ... something else in regard to his assertion about "correlation".

See these graphs:
temperature and carbon dioxide.

"No correlation" -- sure, Bart.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

He's embarrassing himself (yet again). He really just argued that the consensus people speak of was only represented by the published reports of the UN. He was either completely unaware of or willfully eliding the thousands upon thousands of articles published in hundreds-thousands of peer-reviewed journals that had findings in line with that consensus. He is literally ignorant of such basic, basic facts in this debate and yet tries to say he's analyzed the data and found what all those scientist haven't (and then ascribing their contrary finding to a liberal 'world conspiracy').

This is not a serious man.
 

A more intelligent way to proceed, by the way, is to ask whether the observed temperature rise is not simply "noise" -- and then ask what could be causing it. The answer to the first question is that it is statistically insane to accept the null hypothesis that the observed temperature pattern is simply an outlier. (The probability that the observed sample set from 1950, for example, is consistent with this hypothesis if we use the observed samples from 1900 - 1950 as the "control", is so much smaller than .05 that it beggars explanation.)

The answer to the second is that in spite of every effort on the part of scientists to find an alternative explanation, no such explanation has come close to working. That doesn't stop cranks and idiots from talking, as if they understood them, terms like "Maunder minimum".

This is preferable to trying to find "correlations" -- largely because the earth is such a chaotic system that nobody knows exactly over what time period CO2 drives temperature. Denialists pretend that, if we can't find a correlation over X time period, that disproves AGW -- but since they're just pretending X is the proper time span, it's fundamentally dishonest.

But it fits perfectly with the perception problems which affect some people: if they can look at noisy data, and see the pattern they believe holds, it doesn't matter that the data in its entirety make their beliefs ridiculous and laughable. They simply cannot see it.

The same problem resides in the OP discussion: if people wish strongly enough to believe that the Constitution, as it currently is (or as they believe it should be) interpreted, no amount of countervailing evidence will make a dent in that belief as long as there is any instances or bits of data they can focus on that bolsters that belief.
 

That's a great tie-in to the OP C2H5OH, history is of course a very 'noisy' data set, allowing those jurists who say it must be relied upon to pick and choose points in that noise to tell the story they're simply inclined to tell in the first place.
 

bb:

bla....bla....bla...

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 2:56 PM

Blankshot, damned near every glacier on the planet is melting. We know why. You’re an imbecile.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

BD: (1) There is zero correlation between the bouncing raw temperature data and exponentially increasing human CO2 emissions. Even the statistically manipulated temperature data shows a nice smooth temperature trend line, when none exist in nature, has no correlation to exponentially increasing human CO2 emissions. Most notably, human CO emissions over the past twenty years equal all human CO emissions since the industrial revolution, but the derived temperature trend line has not moved apart from the occasional el nino periods.

C2H5OH said...All anyone needs to evaluate Bart's truthfulness is to ask whether he speaks from knowledge or ... something else in regard to his assertion about "correlation". See these graphs: temperature and carbon dioxide.

Thanks for the proof supporting my statements of fact.

(1) Your linked NASA/GISS temperature graph is not the average raw temperature data. Raw temperature data swings up to 2-3 degrees from year to year and would swing off this graph.

Instead, NASA/GISS has been caught multiple times statistically manipulating the data by: (a) excluding satellite measurements and surface temperature measurements which shows cooling, (b) reducing temperatures during earlier years and increasing them in later years when compared to raw temperature readings at the same stations, then (c) smoothing out the data over decades to create the desired upward trend line.

Furthermore, the presentation is dishonestly offered by reducing the Y axis temperatures to less than a single degree and increasing the X axis time period to over a hundred years, giving the false impression of soaring temperatures. If the Y axis instead was increased to the average surface temperature of roughly 50 degrees (f), you would see no trend line at all because the manufactured temperature change is so minuscule when compared to the overall temperature.

Finally, the graph excludes most of the past 20 years of no significant temperature change outside of el nino bumps.

(2) Your atmospheric CO2 level graph at a handful of locations using wild varying methodologies does not measure human CO2 emissions.

(3) HOWEVER, let's assume for the sake of argument: (a) the NASA/GISS temperature graph is accurate and the Earth's temperature is bouncing up and down slightly, and (b) CO emissions increased exponentially since the industrial revolution and the advent of the automobile. As I noted above, there is ZERO correlation between lightly bouncing temperatures and exponentially increasing human CO2 emissions. For example, as the world motorized between 1940 and 1979, temperatures fell slightly. Furthermore, as noted above, as China and India industrialized and motorized over the past twenty years, spiking CO2 emissions, temperature did not change significantly.
 

I am not too familiar with the science of global warning and so forth though the person whose handle is a chemical formula adds a comment that matches my general understandings. But, unlike something like constitutional history or the like, I'm not going to try to argue the details of the point.
 

Evaluating Bart's BS:
(1) Answered before he bothered. Of course we're talking about noisy data. Which is why we need to use averages and statistical methods. "Correlation", furthermore, is the wrong methodology when dealing with chaotic systems with time delays, as it fails to take into account the delay between cause and effect.

(2) Since CO2 has not, historically, been measured over long times -- except at a handful of locations, the complaint here is simply quibbling. It's all the data available.

(3) It's absolutely a perfect example of his selective perception problems that he thinks, somehow, he can say what period to focus on. (Careful endpoint selection is one of the principal means of "lying with statistics").

But let's face it, he will simply double down and continue. In chaotic systems such as the law, politics, and climatology, selective perception means there is simply no end to arguing.

But arguing with trolls while Rome burns has lost its appeal for the moment. He really should, if he thinks he can, try and publish a scholarly paper. (He'll be laughed out of the room.)
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

C2H5OH: (1) Answered before he bothered. Of course we're talking about noisy data. Which is why we need to use averages and statistical methods.

The most honest of the temperature databases is the Berkeley BEST effort. Because weather station coverage is uneven, relatively sparse in much of the world, and constantly changing over time, even they are forced to use a technique called Kriging to average out the measurements across the uncovered areas. The problem with this technique is it has a margin of error of about a degree, well in excess of the alleged trend line.

For those familiar with political polling, when a poll with a +/- 3 percent margin of error finds a head to head race within 1 point, the polls is considered to be a "statistical tie" and there is no way to determine who is actually in the lead.

The same principle applies here. A trend line showing a change well within the margin of error of the measurement is meaningless.

"Correlation", furthermore, is the wrong methodology when dealing with chaotic systems with time delays, as it fails to take into account the delay between cause and effect.

Delayed causation still results in correlation. You would simply see a trailing upward curve in temperature paralleling the upward curve in CO2 emissions.

(2) Since CO2 has not, historically, been measured over long times -- except at a handful of locations, the complaint here is simply quibbling. It's all the data available.

When there is insufficient data to make a conclusion concerning causation, and we really only have the most basic idea how the climate works, honest scientists do not claim high levels of confidence that causation exists. You certainly do not destroy the economy and cause mass starvation and abject poverty on such a baseless assumption.
 

bb:

Overall Antarctic ice has increased for decades and Arctic ice has recovered somewhat since a regional hot spell last century.

The UN projection of mass glacier melt across the world was completely wrong and the Park Service recently removed signs claiming the glaciers of Glacier National Park would be gone by 2020.
 

If anyone wants links for the AGW facts, I have posted dozens of them over the years on my Facebook page.
 

BD: "Absolute power is the exercise of legislative, executive and judicial."

Mr. W: That's not of course what absolute means. It means unlimited or checked.

Absolute monarchs exercised all three type of government power and did not have nearly the reach of our modern bureaucratic government.
 

bb:

Overall Antarctic ice has increased for decades and Arctic ice has recovered somewhat since a regional hot spell last century.

The UN projection of mass glacier melt across the world was completely wrong and the Park Service recently removed signs claiming the glaciers of Glacier National Park would be gone by 2020.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:44 PM

Dumbfuck, neither of your claims refutes the fact the glaciers around the world are melting.
 

Bart: I suggest that, if you really want to debate climatology or statistics, go to "realclimate" blog and participate in the discussions. They allow comments and would be willing, I'm sure, to engage you.

As for me, I don't think I'll accept your assertions as to correlation, statistical decisions, or science as based on knowledge or understanding...

 

Why would you subject those poor people to Bart?
 

and the Park Service recently removed signs claiming the glaciers of Glacier National Park would be gone by 2020.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:44 PM

You might want to check on the changes they made to those signs. lol
 

Oh, and Bart? You might want to check on that assertion that correlation still works fine for systems with delay. Or do this: generate an exponential function for a time interval (say, e^t, t = 0, 1, with 10000 or so steps.) Then add a Gaussian ("normal") distribution to it, so that each element of your series is the sum of the exponential and a sample from the Gaussian. Then compute the correlation coefficient for your series and a lagged copy (for, say, a delay of 100). Now, I hope you'll have no trouble understanding that the underlying function is an exponential, and there is obviously strict causality here. But the correlation coefficient is far below the .5 value most people agree indicates correlation.