Speaking of the truth, um, "issue," why is it that people so often tend to fight facts they don't like? A good example is the fact that it was in the 70s yesterday, on a January day. Only a fool or an insane person would deny that. But a lot of people take issue with what the fact of a 70 degree January day means. Is it "evidence" of "Global Warming"? Or is it, finally, "proof" even for retarded diehards like me?

Actually, to some, I'm more than a retarded diehard; I'm downright evil. Because, not only do I tend to fight facts I don't like and demand proof for them, but even if (as here) they are uncontestable, I will continue to oppose any interpretation of them which gives fuel to the argument that human freedom should be limited.

Hence I am skeptical about global warming/greenhouse gas theory, and skeptical about all facts which are urged in its support. To be fair, I should probably admit that even were I faced with overwhelming evidence of both global warming and an anthropogenic cause, I'd still be opposed to limiting human freedom, unless (and this is a pretty big unless) I could be convinced of some genuine, imminent catastrophe that could actually be prevented. (Unseasonably warm weather does not qualify.) Considering that the planet has been far colder and far warmer, I don't see much chance of any such catastrophe -- certainly not in my lifetime. The evolution of technology being what it is, it would be extremely arrogant of me to presume any sort of duty to "save" future generations of people who will be far better equipped to deal with whatever might happen than any of us now.

What matters to me is here and now, and what I see happening is a theoretical construct being used to ready one of the greatest power grabs in history.

Few of the people who succumb to Global Warming scare tactics think about the consequences of government regulation of carbon dioxide in a manner analogous to the way we treat poison. The ability to travel at all, whether by car, plane, boat, will no longer be a right. The food we eat will be suspect, because cattle are said to produce more greenhouse gas than cars, and agricultural soil is fertilized with methane-producing manure. Think you're going to open a can of beer or soda? How dare you poison the planet! Why, your very existence is poisonous, as you exhale CO2, and the more of you there are, the worse it is for the planet! Thus, old, tired arguments against "sprawl" will take on new life, as will restrictions upon virtually any human activity.

I suppose I can always console myself with the notion that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given power to regulate these things, but since when has a technicality like that stopped them? True, at the start of Prohibition the Constitution was amended to give the government power to regulate alcohol, but in those days the document still meant something. Today, the war on drugs proceeds without any restraint, and I don't doubt that the war on carbon would too.

As I say all of this, I realize that it's not the facts that I tend to hate, so much as what I fear people will do with them once the hysteria factor kicks in. Seen this way, the Drug War and the Carbon War are quite similar. Facts are subordinated to larger considerations. The people who want to regulate are generally blind to facts they don't like, and the people who don't want to be regulated are left having to contest facts which aren't seen to matter anyway.

It's like me and Coco. It doesn't matter whether she bites anyone; what matters is that somewhere in Cleveland an old lady was bitten by a pit bull, and people are hysterical. I can fight the facts all I want, but that does not make the hysteria go away. Ditto for gun control. I do not deny the fact that people kill themselves (and sometimes each other) with guns (or drugs, or even an occasional pit bull unfortunate enough to get dragged into human dysfunctionality), but I deeply resent the way the facts are presented and then manipulated to the point where some know-it-all wants to tell me how I should live. This might take the form of forcing me to cut out my dog's ovaries, making me stand in line to buy cold medicine, enduring endless moral scoldings about how turf war shootouts are caused by drugs and guns themselves, and how my teeth are a health hazard because we really can't admit that the mercury hazard in fish is overblown. Normal people do not have time to dispute or contest these "facts," and many of them fail to realize they are being manipulated by hysteria. Thus, they go along with surrendering their precious freedom, one incremental step at a time. Those who resent the encroachment on freedom are considered cranks.

And those who oppose hysteria are deemed "hysterical."

When hysteria becomes powerful enough, laws are passed. Eventually, even disagreement with the prevailing hysteria can become risky. Already, it's a career-wrecker for scientists to express greenhouse gas skepticism, and activists have demanded Nuremberg trials for them. There's a well-oiled movement with a goal of criminalizing disagreement, and a generation of young people softened up with hate speech tribunals is poised to accept it.

While I was in Spain, Jose Guardia reminded me that there is no such thing as a First Amendment, and hence under proposed new laws, any government minister can shut down any web site he deems "offensive." The more people are ruled by hysteria, the more they tend to see disagreement with prevailing hysteria as "offensive." (Fortunately, the non-hysterical among us can still recognize that preventing such tyranny is the whole idea behind our First Amendment.)

In a great post last week, M. Simon recognized how the Drug War helped facilitate the corruption so obviously apparent in the Duke University "rape" case. A common thread is popular hysteria, in which feelings are more important than freedom or facts. It's more important to win the drug war or stop cultural racism than to be concerned with trifles, and if the rules (or the Constitution) have to be bent or disregarded, so be it. Aren't we forgetting that under our system, certain principles are more important than facts? That if the police lied to get a warrant, it does not matter whether drugs were found? That even if a certain student displays evidence of racism (or a dislike of homosexuals), that does not make him guilty of rape?

I'd rather keep my freedom, even if it's 70 degrees outside.

There. I just said it. I'm prepared to face a Nuremberg tribunal for Holocaust advocacy.

In fact, I'm willing to risk being burned to death by the Holocaust gases I've helped create and encourage!

UPDATE (01/08/07): Simon has an interesting post about IRS officials who must think they're government ministers in Spain. According to their position, while the First Amendment might allow Holocaust denial, tax code denial is worse than shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Any explanations, I'm all ears.