After a University decision to cut all its funding, Yale’s Climate & Energy Institute will close by the end of June.

The loss of the institute, which for the last eight years has conducted research related to issues of climate change, leaves a hole in climate and energy studies at Yale. Although the Energy Studies academic program will continue within Yale College, students in the YCEI said they were outraged by the budget cuts and subsequent closure of an institute that is one of the only research-focused climate change programs for undergraduates on campus. The announcement came in a Monday afternoon email to the YCEI community from institute co-directors and geology and geophysics professors David Bercovici and Jay Ague, and follows years of cuts to the institute’s funding, according to students involved in the organization.

“While not all good things have to come to an end, sometimes they just do,” Bercovici and Ague wrote. “The YCEI will stop activities and close up shop as of June 30, 2016.”

The YCEI was founded in 2008 with the backing of then-University President Richard Levin. Since then, the institute has hosted conferences, fostered collaborations across science departments and between universities outside of Yale, as well as supported scholarships and postdoctoral fellowships that address the changing climate. The institute also supplied undergraduates with a database of energy-related internships. Bercovici and Ague wrote that the YCEI was founded with “overwhelming enthusiasm from faculty and students across campus.” Bercovici and Ague declined to comment Monday night, citing time constraints.

Students interviewed said  that while the YCEI was clearly a priority under Levin, administrative support has dwindled recently. They said they were infuriated by the announced closure and skeptical that it was closing because of insufficient funding.

“It can’t be a budget thing. It can’t be. I don’t want to say that Yale doesn’t support [the YCEI], but … I think it’s the administration’s lack of interest,” said YCEI New Haven Energy Scholar Intern Matthew Goldklang ’16. “I had no idea we were going to be completely cut. It’s really sad.”

He added that he has received emails from YCEI alumni who were furious with the announcement, and he said there are many undergraduates who are also upset.

The YCEI had an extensive budget under Levin’s administration, Goldklang said. Although Goldklang did not provide specific figures, he said the YCEI had enough money to pay its student fellows, fund research and create new classes in the Energy Studies Program.

The institute was one of the few groups on campus that regularly engaged with Yale administrators to solve issues of climate change, Goldklang said.

The announced closure left students in the institute with unanswered questions about why the formerly thriving group had its funding cut. University Provost Benjamin Polak — who is currently engaged in annual budget talks with every area of campus — did not respond Monday to questions about the reasons for the YCEI’s funding cuts. Salovey was also unavailable for comment Monday evening.

One possible explanation for the end of the YCEI is that the institute did not generate many alumni donations, Goldklang said. James Barile ’18, who is involved with the YCEI through a solar energy initiative, said the University appeared to be shifting away from undergraduate climate change research, which he said is not very public, toward climate change initiatives that are “more showy.”

YCEI conference organizer Jared Milfred ’16 speculated that the YCEI may have been viewed as redundant or doing research that overlapped with other science departments on campus. The School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and the Energy Sciences Institute at West Campus conduct similar climate studies to the YCEI, although they do not engage with undergraduates to the same extent as the YCEI, Milfred said.

Barile said the institute’s budget had been cut in half over the last three consecutive years.

“They eventually cut funding so much that it just became buying food,” Barile said.

Milfred also said he was aware of drops in the budget in the past few years, but said he had believed these cuts were in line with reductions at comparable institutes across the University.

“I never realized that the YCEI was being targeted specifically,” Milfred said.

Former YCEI New Haven Energy Scholar Intern Sandra Medrano ’15 also said the news completely surprised her, adding that she had no idea what caused the institute’s demise.

The budget cuts also follow a leadership transition in the YCEI administration: Current executive director and geology and geophysics research scientist Michael Oristaglio ’74 took over the position from Mark Pagani, his colleague in the department, last summer.

The YCEI’s closure leaves behind a hole for students who are interested in climate change issues academically, but are not interested in activist causes like Fossil Free Yale, Goldklang said.

“I really appreciated the resources, both financial and intellectual, that the YCEI had,” Milfred said. “I learned quite a lot from YCEI staff.”

Before the institute closes, the YCEI faculty advisory committee will help students in the senior class finish their requirements for the program, Oristaglio said in a Monday email to YCEI undergraduates.

The Energy Studies Program may fill some of the space left by the YCEI, and students will have a chance to think of ways that Energy Studies can evolve at a series of dinners through the rest of the semester, Oristaglio wrote. The first such dinner took place last week, and students generated ideas about how to bolster the Energy Studies curriculum and strengthen the sense of community between students in the program.

There are a number of University climate change initiatives that were instituted more recently than the YCEI. In December 2015, Yale became the first American university to establish a system of “carbon charges” on some of its buildings.

The Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies was founded in 1900.

  • anon88989

    Report facts, not gossip. How in the world is Goldklang a quotable source for this article? “It can’t be a budget thing. It can’t be. I don’t want to say that Yale doesn’t support [the YCEI], but … I think it’s the administration’s lack of interest.” How in the world could he know this. Going further to say that he did not give specific figures, as if he would know those numbers in the first place? He doesn’t know. He never knew. He’s just venting.

    Also, mentioning that YCEI may have been cut because it didn’t produce alumni donations? How in the world would Goldklang know this. Provide sources. Don’t print gossip from ONE student.

    If you really want to get into why the YCEI was cut, maybe you should look into what kind of research they actually produced. If they were just throwing student conferences and events but not really producing any meaningful research, it’s a sinkhole.

    • Justin Paglino

      what about producing meaningful educational experiences?

      • The Deplorable Jay Stevens

        That sounds really good, but exactly what is a “meaningful educational experience”?

    • VACornell

      A sink hole….agree!
      Let us get to reason…reason!

  • Edgar Hertwich

    It is sad to see that Yale does not muster a more forceful response to what many see as the defining challenge of our generation.

    • John WB

      Defining challenge? LOL.

    • Andrew Richards

      Only if you fall for rhetoric from the likes of Al “wanna buy a used car guv?” Gore and Michael “psst, look at my schtick” Mann.

      • Edgar Hertwich

        Excuse me?

  • Brinnananda

    Maybe if we don’t study it, it will just go away.

    • John WB

      Maybe it was barely there in the first place.

    • Andrew Richards

      The climate is definitely here to stay. Climate alarmists who fiddle data on the other hand…

    • Michele Anne Tittler

      It never existed in the first place.

  • ShadrachSmith

    It was all grubered data from the start. Those same people who told you climate change is a threat are now telling you to vote for Hillary. Would they lie to you?

    • SuffolkBoy

      When I was studying climate change (OK, as a very small part of a wider course) at the University of East Anglia around 2008, the grubering was explicit, though under a different phrase: Noble Corruption, which influenced more than just climate research. We were encouraged to believe that the general population was educationally unable to comprehend let alone avert a supposed impending Mencken disaster. It was therefore necessary to lie to schoolchildren and to fraud investigators, to fabricate not just data and to synthesize an entire phoney new “way of doing science”, involving publishers, NASA, politicians and national science institutions, in order to keep everybody “on message”. What surprises me is that after eight or more years of incremental exposure of this vast global wealth redistribution fraud there are still individuals that really don’t comprehend the nature, extent and pecuniary value of the fraud.

      • ac05jn

        i, and i think a lot of people would like to read a detailed article about that experience if you would write one.

  • Richard Reiss

    It’s regrettable to lose YCEI at a time when the university should be growing, rather than shrinking, opportunities for undergrads to learn about and confront the world they will be facing. As Ben Strauss ’94 pointed out on PBS NewsHour last week, all coastal cities (New Haven and Yale’s campus, included) are in for a challenging future:

    Every informed person, including Yale undergrads, likely feels some level of stress already from this kind of information:

    Facing it head on by visibly working for collective solutions is the best approach — or else what’s an education for? Yale should make energy, climate and the future part of every undergrad’s curriculum.

    • Keith Cameron

      Tell your story walking.

    • SuffolkBoy

      I agree that Yale should be growing opportunities for undergraduates to learn about and confront “the world they will be facing”.

      However, that world is not the physical world of rapid anthropogenic climate change, nor coastal inundations nor famine nor any of the hundreds of other phenomena that the climate scientists and politicians have been “attributing” to AGW.

      Rather, the relevant world is the political one identified by H L Mencken, in which the populace is menaced by an endless series of imaginary hobgoblins, in order that the politicians can acquire and maintain power through compulsory global wealth transfer and global legislation.

      The immediate personal stressors identified in the links to the Star and Climate Central are not climate change itself but rather (i) the irrational belief in and fear of AGW that has been induced in the more susceptible individuals of the general public (ii) the very real anxiety induced in climate scientists that their funding will be cut and that they will face serious personal financial problems. Both these areas fall in the remit of sect deprogrammers and counsellors.

      The lessons which we can learn from this phenomenon belong not to the physical sciences but to practical politics, criminology, psychology, groupthink, and the madness of crowds.

  • Justin Paglino

    Very disappointing. Talk about upside down priorities and lack of vision. Not even an attempt at an excuse or explanation from Mr Salovey? What gives?

    • John WB

      Climate science was never a legitimate science in any sense of the term. The hypothesis were never falsifiable and the overinflated claims became an embarrassment to any decent university.

    • Andrew Richards

      Common sense?

  • badneolib

    LOL where to start?

  • odin2

    After all, the science is settled. 🙂

  • wjgo

    Well, at least we can all agree that the science has already been long settled.

  • EdChombeau

    just another nail in the clmate scare coffin.

  • stevetierney

    So long and thanks for all the fish.

  • ac05jn

    you don’t need a university course to learn about the fraud of global wa… *cough “climate change”.. try political sciences/ or history. start with margaret thatcher and the 1984 Miners’ strike

  • Keith Cameron

    Yes, stop funding lies.

    • Heard_It_All_Before

      I never knew that you were funded. Now I know.

  • ac05jn

    you don’t need a university course to learn about the fraud of global wa… *cough “climate change”.. try political sciences/ or history. start with margaret thatcher and the 1984 Miners’ strike

  • Canman

    What did they expect? When you advocate policies that make the country poorer, it puts pressure on your funding.

  • Andrew Richards

    And the poor defrauded tax payer breaths a sigh of relief. How the man made climate catastrophe cult managed to perpetuate itself for so long will intrigue historians for years to come…

  • ClimateLearner

    It never reached anywhere near the level of intellectual integrity I expect from Yale. Instead, it seemed intent on promoting the politically-loaded and often blinkered cause of alarm over climate variation attributed to we humans. As the NIPCC reports have shown, there are considerable grounds for debate about climate change, and to mindlessly push just one narrow side of it was unbecoming to Yale.

  • MikeW

    How about erecting a commemorative wind turbine on the Cross Campus lawn? The global warming fraudsters and their “green” energy cronies have forced many rural Americans to endure the blight of these hideous eagle-slaughtering monstrosities in their communities.

    • VACornell

      Can you put some economics to this?

  • rhhardin

    You could cover the Navier Stokes equations in physics courses, and notice that climate models don’t use them.

    Or you could cover eigenvalues in math and notice that they explode, making observations useless, when trying to distinguish a trend from a cycle, something that climate science doesn’t know.

    This is all undergraduate STEM stuff.

    • Ted Bagg

      Both your claims seem essentially false to me. Care to elaborate?

      • rhhardin

        Well yes, thanks for asking.

        1. Navier Stokes equations govern for instance the atmosphere. You can’t solve them numerically. In three dimensions, flows go to shorter and shorter scales, so that no grid resolution is adequate to represent them. You need shorter scale flows though because they serve as a sort of ersatz viscosity acting back on large scale flows. Climate science models deal with this by using an “effective viscosity,” which unfortunately is not the Navier Stokes equations and is not physics. It’s just adding a knob to the collection of knobs in the model. This always gets past peer review. (In two dimensions, flows do not tend to shorter scales, which is how weather forecasts manage a couple of days of solution, the large flows being mostly two dimensional. It breaks down though in that vortices kink in the third dimension and that’s where the solution fails, after a couple of weather days.)

        2. You can’t tell a cycle from a trend with data short compared to the cycle to be eliminated. The eigenvalues of the discriminating matrix explode hugely, making every observation useless for the purpose. A cycle of course can’t be man-made. Climate science always says it’s a trend. No data supports this or can support it. Any math graduate student can verify this, yet it’s never mentioned.

        I have a checkered career in science but it intersects climate science in these two places. I gather that climate science has no adult peer review system from it. On the matter of global warming, the right answer is that we can’t tell. It’s too complicated to compute and the data is hopelessly inadequate and will remain so.

        • jimfact

          Well said. I am getting flashbacks from my undergrad engineering teachers. This is all standard math that I would assume GWarming advocates aren’t required to take before getting a degree? I remember that some Civil Engineers didn’t have to pass some of the high end generic science stuff but maybe these guys don’t either? I believe the CE’s got BS degrees but I am not 100%.

        • Edgar Hertwich

          This was a very poor explanation that is clearly not satisfactory. Usually equations describe something, they do not govern things. The Navier Stokes equatio happens to describe incompressible fluid flow, relating pressure and velocity. Air is not incompressible, so using this equation would be an approximation. Further, it could not describe warming, but it might effect how heat is distributed.

          • rhhardin

            There’s a rho, fluid density, in the Navier Stokes equations. That imports a whole equation of state, far from only incompressible.

            The flow not only moves heat around but causes clouds and so forth, via the equation of state.

            If you can’t get the flow right, nothing is right.

            If the fluid is incompressible, by the way, you don’t need pressure at all. You just set the divergence of the flow to zero.

        • The Deplorable Jay Stevens

          “I gather that climate science has no adult peer review system from it. ”

          Judging by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”, I would be forced to agree.

    • Edgar Hertwich

      Do you actually know what the Navier Stokes equation is? And how it would be used to explain the greenhouse effect?

  • thorntme

    The article states, “The institute was one of the few groups on campus that regularly engaged with Yale administrators to solve issues of climate change, Goldklang said.” What exactly were the climate change issues SOLVED by Yale administrators, and Yalie students of climate science? Just curious to know. But, not to worry!! As we all know, there is no need for further research since the “science is settled.”

    • Clunking Fist

      The Administration’s cafetaria was converted to vegan-only?

  • Grumpyoldman2

    Hooray for Yale.
    Hooray at last,
    Hooray for Yale,
    GW ‘s the Camel’s Aft

  • Richard Reiss

    Wow, so many trolls [ed – ok, this is a nonproductive term, as Cardigan below points out]? Here’s a NASA question, since it seems their science is in doubt here: Mars Curiosity Rover — real or fake? Just trying to keep track of the conspiracies.

    • Bill G

      The people who are so negative about climate science and who accuse climate scientists of being greedy are not clear headed and cannot listen (why one would think that one can make money doing climate science is something I could not figure out). We can have many 100 year events (rainstorms, droughts) and the Arctic could begin to warm to unprecedented levels and these things would make no impression on such folk. I would assume that these folks main concern is with government overreach and control and an interest in money. The society does not recognize its dependence on nature and its vulnerabilities. I think once that realization has been made it will be way down the road and way too late.

      • Dale

        Perhaps there would be more support for climate research if the politics (and the highly political UN) were kept at arm’s length. When the focus is on wealth distribution rather than understanding and adapting to our ongoing and never-ending climate change, it’s very difficult to get scientists and others not on the government payroll to remain interested and/or provide support.

      • Rick Derringer

        There has been an 18 year pause in global warming, as presented in the UN climate change technical briefing. As well if you read Richard Byrds diaries from arctic exploration, he is convinced that early Viking settlements on the edge of greenland were destroyed by a period of global warming, and I don’t think there was an abundance of fossil fuel burning in the 1400’s

        • Edgar Hertwich

          There has not. Have you missed the temperature records set in 2014 and 2015?

          • MAS01

            Does any temperature increase match the increase in CO2 over the same period? Remember, “CO2 is the driver”.

          • Rick Derringer

            temperature records are set every year, some hot some cold, the fact in the UN technical briefing on page 27 clearly states that there has been an 18 year pause, and this technical briefing was presented by one of global warming alarmists who could no longer hide behind bs. Why do you think they are now calling it climate CHANGE, instead of global warming. Go rewatch your bible, An Inconvenient Truth and find anything in there that has come to pass…….NOTHING!!!!! Quit listening to the puppet media and read some books, research papers and the like…..educate yourself.

          • odin2

            Talking about temperature records is a way to deflect from the fact that the trend for the past 19 years has been flat or increasing only slightly despite the fact that 1/3 of all man made forcings since 1750 arose after 1979. Also, virtually all of the general climate models projected much higher temperatures than what was observed during this period.

          • Clunking Fist

            LOL: there was only a 48% chance that 2014 was the hottest year since records began, accordiing to NOAA. According to NASA, the chance was only 38%. How long have we been keeping records, Edgar? Since 1880 it seems. Was that when the earth, and her climate, started?

            Here’s the press release:

      • U_Think_Ur_Hot_Pasta_Don’t_Ya?

        So climate is naturally stagnate? Got it, and to think all of the science I denied. God must have buried those woolie mammoth remains in order to test my faith in The Climate Science.

        • Bill G

          I guess it is how one looks at phenomena cause I don’t think of it as a faith. I live in CA. We are still in drought (we are getting rain this weekend, hooray). This dry and warm weather has been extending all the way up into Alaska (no snow for the dog sled ride again). What this has resulted in is an increase in huge forest fires all the way up into Alaska. Also it is reported that the CA forests are in poor condition, prone to beetle attacks on a wide scale. Also, it is my personal experience that the weather is different, warmer for sure. So, for me, the climate where I live has changed. Has it changed before, sure, I have read that it has changed before. Do I ‘believe’ in heat trapping gases and and energy budget. I guess that is a belief since I cannot see heat trapping gases and the energy budget is a conceptual thing. I don’t think of it as religious, but as an explanation of phenomena. I think it is rather pointless talking about a statistic because it is more the change in phenomena and how we, as a society, can deal with it. The science provides an explanation of that change, but, being science, it is relative.

          • mcm

            All of the conditions being experienced on the western coast of North America also occurred back in the 30’s and many many times before all the way back to the end of the last ice age. It’s nothing new. It’s cyclic and will occur again – and again – and again – whether us humans are here or not.

            As for the forest fires; according to the National Forestry Service – over 85% on average of the forest fires in the US in the past 20 years have been ignited by humans. Last year, it was over 90%. They don’t keep records on whether the fires display evidence of eco-terrorism or not (if they do, they don’t publish it) – just that they were set by humans — not natural events such as lightening. — The majority of trees in the forests in North America are of the pine and cedar varieties, which are highly flammable even when wet. You don’t need drying conditions to start a raging forest fire, but timing the fires with hot dry weather gets the most bang for the buck for AGW sycophants – and that is the only reason why forest fires have increased in the past several years. — It has nothing to do with any climate change.

      • sotto voce

        There’s LOTS of money to be made in climate science. Millions of dollars in government and foundation grants have been forked over to researchers with the implicit understanding that their findings will support AGW theories no matter what (as for the Yale program, apparently grantors felt their money would be better spent on high-profile researchers with PhDs instead of lowly undergrads).

        The fact that a prominent public charlatan like Al Gore made himself as rich as Croesus by shamelessly scamming the gullible over AGW is a perfect illustration of the amounts of money and greed involved, and another good reason intellectually honest people question the motives behind the whole issue of “climate change”.

    • cardigan

      Labels again. Someone doesn’t follow the party line, so they are a troll.

  • Chuckbladerunner

    Why would Yale want to engage undergraduates in climate change research? I mean after all, it is only the greatest challenge facing society in the 21st century.

    • Andrew Dixon

      The science is settled, havn’t you heard, no need for any more research

      • Chuckbladerunner

        Yes, the science is settled that climate change is a huge problem. The research opportunities will come in finding alternative energy sources. mitigating the impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, and developing carbon dioxide removal technologies. And, all of these things will need to be compatible with feeding 9.5 billion people by 2050. These are the climate change solutions in which the research is needed because the science and technology is not settled.

        • Andrew Dixon

          Well actually its not settled at all, it hasn’t warmed significantly for 17 years and none of the doomsday predictions are coming true. The polar bears are refusing to die, the dams are full, its still snowing, the overall ice at the poles refuse to melt as predicted, and when they do melt for a few years they then stubbornly begin to add ice again, refugees flee because of war, not CC. All those low lying islands refus eto sink into the oceans and the govts keep sinking more nd more money into infrastructure, strange that most of the spending is on anything other then things to try and stop the rising seas, they must be really worried about sinking. Extreme weather events refuse to increase in number and you still believe everything these idiots tell you. You actually believe that scientists are actually able to predict every single variable of which there are 100’s that effect weather. Seriously if some one told you they can predict housing prices using a model that accurately predicts every variable you would laugh them out the door, but somehow you think they can predict all the variables in weather. LMAO. Oh by the way, I have a house for sale, I predict it will be worth millions in 10 years, you can have it for a mill, get back to me.

          • TenneyNaumer

            Even Roy Spencer said the increase in his satellite temperatures has been “whopping” so you can stop using that denier meme now.

          • Chuckbladerunner

            Actually, I am a climate scientist, so I can actually speak with some authority when I reply that your are totally ignorant about the facts that you don’t think are settled.

            First, global warming never slowed down during the past 17 years. For a brief period of time more heat accumulated in the ocean and less in the atmosphere, but since >93% of the heat from global warming goes into the ocean on average and <3% goes into the atmosphere on average, the so-called global warming hiatus in the atmosphere was just a brief blip in the record that can be associated with decadal-scale climate variability linked to the PDO and AMO.

            Obviously, you don't live west of the Mississippi River if you think that the dams are anywhere near full.

            Last month, the Arctic set a new record for lowest winter sea ice extent on record, and every year since 2007, summer sea ice extent has been lower than any year in the record before 2007.

            But, I realize that these inconvenient truths won't have an impact on somebody like you who gets his facts from non-scientific sources that keep on regurgitating the same old lies and misinformation. If you don't want to believe today's scientists, then go read what Exxon-Mobil's scientists had to say in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They saw it all coming decades ago until the CEO and board members shut them up and started the company's misinformation campaign. And, Exxon will be facing criminal charges because of it very soon.

        • VACornell

          Probably the biggest missunderstanding is that CO2 in the atmos is bad.
          We have benefited a lot since it went from 290ppm to 400.
          Let’s get to 450 and see…!… The added benefits.
          Vern Cornell…lost in San Diego

    • SpaceCadet

      Rather it is the greatest revenue opportunity since the Pet Rock

      • Chuckbladerunner

        If you believe that, then you really are a Space Cadet.

        • Gorba

          The climate on our planet has been in flux for millions of years despite having no human industrial footprint. The sun has more to do with climate change than all the humans combined.

          The sun is believed by NASA to be going into a dormant stage. That should effect a cooling trend.
          Perhaps Yale has come to their senses and will stop pushing a money racket agenda.

      • alan851603

        Yep, 3 trillion a year from fossil fuels vs 250 billion from alternatives makes 3.25 trillion. A lot of dough.

    • cardigan

      On what authority do you make the statement?

      • Chuckbladerunner

        Bloomberg Businessweek, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Nicholas Stern

        • alan851603

          Why on earth would the opinion of financial reporters be relevant to this? The mesurements, combined with a dip in Solar irradiance say enough.

  • Tanya Bower

    Could this be the beginning of the end for the Climate Scam?

    • Jim Simpson

      Not before time Tanya! Shades of the recent news of some 350 staff from Australia’s CSIRO climate sciences group receiving their marching orders!!

    • Ausves

      I think the Paris Climate Accord was the beginning of the end – since the problem was solved at this convention, there is no more need for research…

    • cardigan

      A while to go yet I fear, they won’t give up without a fight.

    • alan851603

      Tanya, if global temperatures rise over the next five years to a point where the modelling predictions say they “should” be, would that be enough to persuade you that AGW is not a “scam” but a genuinely scientific attempt at predicting future climate?

      There are macro factors like solar irradiance, ocean temperature and the El Nino/Nina effects at work. Plus melting Arctic ice will decrease albedo and so on.

      I really, really hope you are right and the whole thing is a scam, I really do. So do the Polar Bears, I expect.

      • GMB

        I hate to burst the bubble but climate change can’t be measured in 5 years, and if you look at trends over 500 years there are MANY 5 year periods that are much warmer, or much cooler. There are ALWAYS fluctuations. And if you are worried about arctic ice melting on one side of a pole, just look at the opposite side. “Scientists” are focused on an ice shelf in Antarctica watching it break off, and ignoring the other side of Antarctica that has an exponentially building ice shelf. If all the warnings were real, shouldn’t most beaches be underwater by now? But they still exist. LA beach, Daytona Beach, Rhehoboth Beach (sp), South Padre Island. None have lost any more sand or property than normal eroision of an ocean normally does. The tidal planes are the same. The empirical evidence doesn’t match with what “climate scientists” have tried to push.

        • Clunking Fist

          We had thermometers 500 years ago? And they were accurate? Super.

      • Theo ✓

        The models are wrong, end of story. I expect within a year the ECS projections will lose the top third of their range due to recent cloud research at CERN. That means the alarmist projections are dying, not actual climate science.

      • Wayne fowler

        Temperature projections have not left the range of model projections. There are margins of error to consider, In addition as of last year temps are right on line.×515.png?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=40dc993516d1fa96a7ed8a5a95043ae7
        I would also recommen reading Frame and Stone
        And Pahmstorf et al
        And Risby

        if you want to understand how well models are preforming.

        Unfortunately it isn’t a scam. There is no reason to expect actual global cooling.

  • U_Think_Ur_Hot_Pasta_Don’t_Ya?

    What will become of all the Karl Marx motivation posters on the walls?

  • SpaceCadet

    The program is being repurposed into a creative writing degree. Guest lecturers will include Leo DICaprio.

    • Walter Hagen

      Hahahaha. Best comment ever!!!

  • Richard Reiss

    When you spend some time researching climate change for yourself, one of the first things that stands out is how old a topic it is. Here the basic premise is sketched out in the Bell Telephone Science Hour, 1958:

    (Things Bell Labs brought into our lives: the transistor, the laser, the CCD camera chip, and the Unix operating system.)

    In 1969, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a memo on climate change while working as an aide in the Nixon White House:

    In 1979, the National Academy of Sciences produced a definitive report, with predictions that are bearing out in the present:

    The University of California system provides an example of leadership that would be good for Yale to emulate:

  • Jester40

    Students screwed… First lesson about what it means to be a liberal. Better get a government job.

  • Richard Reiss

    Bard leads, where Yale lags:

    • Theo ✓

      It appears Yale still teaches climate science but recognized ungrads can’t get funded to do actual climate research, probably because they are still being trained and lack the skills/knowledge required. Your link didn’t show Bard was funding undergrad research.

  • Robert J. Cihak, MD

    Maybe they really believe “The debate is over” as Australia apparently does. I recently read 300 Australian climate scientists are being reassigned to other government jobs.

  • bilejones

    It’s hard not to laugh.
    So I did.

  • Theo ✓

    An undergad program focused on research is a ploy to seek funding for said research. Obviously the $$$ never materialized, thankfully people recognized most undergrads aren’t capable (yet) of delivering quality research.