Are They JOKING? New RIDICULOUS Degree Program At Columbia Announced!

The Ivy League, in particular, is known for its eclectic offerings, such as "Ethnic Underwater Dog-Polishing Studies." As long as the current education financing system remains unaltered, the proliferation of such programs is inevitable.

A case in point is Columbia University, a campus that has been the stage for numerous pro-Hamas demonstrations. The university has now introduced a degree in Climate Finance. The concept of financing climate was previously unknown, but it seems we have now reached that point.

The university's website describes the program as follows: "The Columbia Climate Schools mission is to further knowledge and educate leaders to achieve equitable and just solutions to the changing climate and related sustainability challenges." This statement, however, seems devoid of any substantial content, reminiscent of the vacuous rhetoric that marked Kamala Harris's tenure in office.

The issue at hand is that global climate, a complex and chaotic web of interconnected systems and influences, should be a subject of scientific investigation. Such inquiry should be driven by data, dispassionate, and open to evolving conclusions based on new evidence. This program, however, does not embody these principles. It is, in essence, a political program.

Robert Bradley Jr., a writer for the climate and energy website Master Resource, has offered some intriguing insights on the subject. He questions the lack of a "first, check your premises" warning. As Fred Smith, the late founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), stated, "Greater speed to the wrong destination is not a virtue." The path dependency and "the tyranny of the status quo" in climate research can misdirect a student's time and subsequent career path.

Lisa Sachs, the Director of Columbia Climate Schools Masters in Climate Finance, has consistently avoided addressing intellectual diversity and the need for balanced debate on open climate questions. This, according to Bradley, is indicative of the climate propaganda prevalent at Columbia University.

Bradley suggests that a critic of the narrative of alarm and forced energy transition is essential in a climate degree program. Such a critic could teach courses and serve as a resource for students taking activist/alarmist courses. He also recommends debates between CO2/climate optimists and pessimists, and the inclusion of 'skeptic' articles, websites, and key books as texts for climate courses. These resources could include the websites of Alex Epstein, Robert Bryce, Bjorn Lomborg, Roger Pielke Jr.s Substack, and the Modernizing the EPA project of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, among others.

These suggestions would be invaluable if Columbia University were genuinely interested in intellectual diversity, the only diversity that truly matters. However, the concept of "critical thinking" has been replaced by a dictatorial approach to education, where students are told what to think and how to feel. This is antithetical to the very essence of higher education. The existence of such a program at Columbia University is a testament to this shift.

The question arises: is there a risk in exposing students to dissenting views? Is there a danger in teaching them about the complexity and chaos of the Earth's systems, and that our understanding of these systems is limited? Is it risky to inform them that the Earth's climate has always been in flux, even before human existence? Is there a risk in revealing the potential consequences of the climate alarmists' agenda - the relinquishment of our modern, comfortable, technological lifestyle, with no discernible impact on the Earth's climate?

The answer is clear. Yes, there is a risk. The risk lies in breaking the climate alarmists' monopoly on higher education and their influence over Western politicians and governments. It is a risk to their control. Control, it seems, is always the underlying issue.