Angry in the Great White North

When I read this declaration of "war" against global warming skeptics, I struggled with what to say:

Climate secretary Ed Miliband broke his silence on the ongoing row about man-made climate change by declaring war on the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or man-made.

My initial reaction was that Ed Miliband crossed some sort of line, but instead of just railing against him, I paused to think about it.

Governments declare "war" all the time, it seems.  They'll declare a "war against crime" or a "war against poverty".

Why does this seem different?  Is it merely because I'd be the target of Ed Miliband's war if I lived in the UK?

So I thought more about it, and I began to understand what made me see this as different, on an intuitive level..

First, take a "war against crime" (or any specific crime, like a "war against drunk driving").  A crime is defined by law (debated and passed by democratically elected legislatures), and enforced by the courts, at arms length from the government.  To fight the "war", the government might allocate additional resources to law enforcement, but that is a change in intensity.  And when a criminal is arrested, he is processed through the justice system with all the rights and protections given to any citizen accused of a crime, and with the onus on the government to prove its case.  The "war on crime" does not alter that.

If I voiced doubts about the global warming alarmism, am I doing anything illegal?  Of course not.  As a citizen of the UK, I would have a right to voice those doubts, as loudly as I care to.  There is no law against it, so how can the British government justify this "war"?  This isn't like a "war on crime", since there is no crime being committed.

So criminal justice is a formal, well-defined, process, and it's obvious how a "war on crime" is different from a "war on global warming skeptics".   What about something less well defined, like a "war on poverty" (or "war on illiteracy" and the like)?  How can I feel less offended by the notion of such a "war"? 

Poverty is something that is objectively undeniable.  It is a not a potential future outcome, but a present reality.  And despite it's objective reality, we can (and do) debate how to draw the the line to define poverty, what its underlying causes are, and how to best address the issue.

Indeed, we seem to tolerate more debate on a real issue like poverty than we do on global warming, which is predicted by computer models.  And by "we", I mean people like Ed Miliband.

This "war on skeptics" is not like a "war on crime" or a "war on poverty", and now I understand why.   It's not because I'm the bad guy in it. 

So what will this "war" be like?

Unlike a "war on crime", there are no weather police who will enjoy increased funding.  Maybe it will be more like a "war on poverty".  In that "war", government money can be shifted to non-governmental organization -- charities in particular -- to fight the fight.

So does Ed Miliband intend to deliver money to Greenpeace or the WWF?

He doesn't say so.  Instead of material support, Ed Miliband promises only moral support:

The climate secretary warned activists against despair, saying: "There's a message for people who take these things seriously: don't mourn, organise."

If I lived in the UK, I'd be very concerned about this statement.  Ed Miliband is now on record as targeting skeptics who are doing nothing illegal.  The government cannot punish skeptics for being skeptics, or for voicing their skepticism.  Frankly, Ed Miliband can't do much about skeptics...directly.

But Ed Miliband can fight this war by proxy.  He wants the alarmists to organize.  Organization takes cash -- the larger the organization, the more cash is needed.  Governments have lots of cash.  Ed Miliband controls government cash.

UK bloggers ought to keep an even closer eye on Ed Miliband.