Closure of NCAR Signals Major Shift in US Climate Science Policy
The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, which has operated for over 50 years, is set to be dismantled. The closure was announced on social media platform X by Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought described NCAR as "one of the largest sources of climate alarmism," a characterization that researchers and commentators contest as a misrepresentation of the center's scientific work.
This decision is part of a broader agenda outlined in Vought's Project 2025 manifesto, which aims to eliminate governmental knowledge on climate change. It is linked to a budget proposal to end funding for most climate-related government laboratories. Despite these efforts, Congress rejected most of the current administration's proposed climate-related funding cuts this year, though Vought is expected to renew his push next year.
The move to close NCAR is framed by some authors as an act of climate Lysenkoism and a purge of climate research designed to promote American energy dominance through fossil fuels. This aligns with political influences from the oil and gas industry, which reportedly donated at least $75 million to Donald Trump's campaign, with promises to expand fossil fuel exploration and production.
The impact of budget cuts and job losses on the scientific community is significant; at the American Geophysical Union meeting in New Orleans, participation by federally funded scientists has declined. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a report in July on climate impacts commissioned by Chris Wright, which was subsequently debunked by over 85 climate scientists. The National Academy of Sciences later affirmed that evidence of harm from greenhouse gases is beyond dispute.
In related developments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to drop references to climate science in the upcoming year as it updates its endangerment finding, following the Wright report and its scientific rebuttal. These developments mark a notable shift in US climate policy and scientific research priorities.
