Junk Science, Bad Policies

The Kyoto Protocol was bad policy based on junk science. Don't believe me? Read this lecture by Michael Crichton. Go ahead, give it a read.

Well, nine northeastern states have decided to break with national policy by introducing measures to attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Nine northeastern U.S. states are working on a plan to cap and then reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, the first U.S. deal of its kind and one which would see the region breaking with President George W. Bush who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol

The move comes as California, Washington and Oregon are considering a similar pact -- a dynamic environmentalists say could pressure the federal government to adopt a national law. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the greenhouse gas reduction plan adopted by more than 150 countries.

Under the plan being worked on, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont would cap carbon dioxide emissions at 150 million tons a year -- roughly equal to the average emissions in the highest three years between 2000 and 2004.

Starting in 2015, the cap would be lowered, and emissions would be cut by 10 percent in 2020.

This is really pretty asinine if you ask me. Not only is the whole thing a completely political joke aimed at snagging the votes of "green" voters, but the net effect is a concerted effort to handicap efficient, clean Western manufacturers while ignoring the emissions of such nations as China and Indiana. As Crichton points out in the cited lecture:

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?

Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

It's agenda-driven pseudo-science, plain and simple, and it's shameful, shameful, that we're not seeing more legitimate leadership on this issue from our elected officials. Kudos to President Bush for seeing this as a red herring, and taking the middle ground on the issue by taking steps to reduce pollution while refusing to commit American companies to an industry-crippling farce.