Fans of Genesis (the band, not the book) are likely familiar with the story—perhaps apocryphal—of Cnut the Great (also spelled Canute), a pre-Norman king of Britain, who is said to have “set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes.” That went about as well as you would expect. I bring up old King Cnut because there is a particularly Cnutty law being proposed in North Carolina that, essentially, will make it illegal for the sea level to rise:

[rates of sea level rise] shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly.

Scientific American’s Scott Huler writes:

North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises. Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.

Estimating things like sea level rise—or anything else in nature—is, of course, just that: an estimate. But there are good estimates and there are bad estimates, and science is about developing methodologies to refine those estimates so they’re as reliable as they can be. Will they ever be 100% perfect? No, of course not, and no scientist has any delusion that they ever will be. But proposing laws to restrict scientific methodology to produce less reliable estimates simply because it might be inconvenient does a great disservice to the people who will be affected by sea level rise and could cause catastrophic damage.

But while the rising sea may engender emotion, it exists in a world of fact, of measurable evidence and predictable results, where scientists using their best methods have agreed on a reasonable – and conservative – estimate of a meter or more of rising seas in the coming century.

And where have we seen this kind of “legislating science” before? In the former Soviet Union, where Western-based genetics was deemed “fascist” or “bourgeois” and “Lysenkoism” based in part on the principle (actually descended from Lamarckism) of the heritability of acquired characteristics, long ago disproven. Unfortunately, this was deemed the “one true science” by Stalin and any scientist who disagreed with it was put to death or sent off to a labor camp. It also was not particularly good for Soviet science or agriculture. Even Cnut was forced to concede, “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.” Change “kings” to “legislators” and the comparison is apt.