Dr. Matthew Wielicki’s appointment signals a course correction toward true scientific rigor and away from narrative-driven climate alarmism.
I have long been a fan of Dr. Matthew Wielicki, who left higher education because of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at universities.
I reported on his escape from the toxic academic environment in 2023.
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki is an assistant professor of geology at the University of Alabama.
Or, rather was, until he became tired of battling the ideological capture of geology and climatology.
….This man is a talented, passionate educator and researcher. His departure is likely only one of many similar losses throughout this country, as talented men and women opt to pursue something not as soul-draining as trying to make a living in woke academia. Ultimately, our nation will be poorer, less prosperous, and less secure as a result.
…were founded on. These are no longer places that embrace the freedom of exchanging ideas and will punish those that go against the narrative. Although I had worked from an early age to earn a Ph.D. and become a professor, like my father, I feel the profession…
— Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki (@MatthewWielicki) January 23, 2023
He describes himself as a “professor in exile”. He has since become a prominent voice in the push-back against narrative-based science, running a blog called Irrational Fear and amassing a substantial following on social media.
Wielicki’s pursuit of excellence in science caught the attention of the Trump administration. He has now been appointed Director of the United States Global Change Research Program.
Congratulations to @MatthewWielicki – the new Director of United States Global Change Research Program. I look forward to policies based on real science, reproducible data, and rational risk-based assessments. pic.twitter.com/vGJFsN28qT
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) July 10, 2026
Progressives, globalists, and those invested in climate cultism are hardest hit. This is how Politico covered this development, attempting to deride Wielicki as a “climate critic”.
The Trump administration has reconstituted a governmentwide program that tracks how climate change is transforming the country, after having gutted it last year as part of a purge of programs that didn’t line up with its worldview.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program is now headed by Matthew Wielicki, a former University of Alabama geochemist, according to his public postings on social media and confirmed by a second person familiar with the program, granted anonymity over fears of reprisal.
…Reached by phone, Wielicki, who has been soliciting ideas on X for what he should include in the next version of the assessment, said he’d like to speak about his work but only if the White House allows. The White House did not make him available for an interview, but sent a statement.
“For too long, the USGCRP has been used as a vehicle for political agendas instead of sound science,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement. “We look forward to restoring the USGCRP and ensuring it fulfills its legal mandate.”
The Trump administration has decided to reconstitute the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which produces the National Climate Assessments. My good friend Dr. @MatthewWielicki has been appointed as the Director of it.
I have a lot of confidence that the next NCA assessment,… pic.twitter.com/wVgVRaiRoV
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) July 10, 2026
Legal Insurrection readers may recall my previous work related to the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which was created in 1990. It coordinates federal climate and environmental research across more than a dozen agencies. It is responsible for producing the National Climate Assessment (NCA), a comprehensive report released every four years that details how climate change affects American infrastructure, public health, land productivity, water resources, flood risks, and the broader economy.
That document underpins a great deal of policy, and about one year ago, the Trump administration booted out 400 climate cultists who were involved in this assessment. They were replaced by 5 more credible professionals.
Instead of waiting until 2027, Energy Secretary Chris Wright commissioned a new climate assessment report that is entitled, “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” It is a thoughtful, balanced work that reviews both the science and economics behind “climate change.” The document also references studies that suggest that the economic impact of carbon dioxide-induced warming may be less severe than promoted by the media and activist climate ‘scientists,” and notes that aggressive climate mitigation efforts could potentially do more harm than good. Finally, it notes that U.S. policy measures are expected to have minimal effects on global climate.
And the best part? The entire document will be authored by a five-member team, including: Dr. John Christy (climatologist), Dr. Judith Curry (climatologist), Dr. Steven Koonin (theoretical physicist), Dr. Ross McKitrick (economist) and Dr. Roy Spencer (meteorologist and climate scientist).
This is one small win for science, and one big win for the American people. https://t.co/mbGHODzaxo
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) July 31, 2025
I join Secretary of Energy Chris Wright in his sentiment: I welcome the new era where data, not rhetoric, is the arbiter of truth.
Matt Weilicki is an honest scientist who follows the data wherever it leads. That is what science is all about. He will lead our efforts to honestly present the empirical climate data to guide policy makers.
Sadly, too much of the mainstream climate community has focused on a scary narrative that is inconsistent with actual climate data, leading so many astray like reporters at Politico.
I welcome the new era where data, not rhetoric, is the arbiter of truth. Growing the government, increasing energy prices, and scaring children will no longer be the goal. Science will be the goal.
Matt Weilicki is an honest scientist who follows the data wherever it leads. That is what science is all about. He will lead our efforts to honestly present the empirical climate data to guide policy makers.
Sadly, too much of the mainstream climate community has focused on a…
— Secretary Chris Wright (@SecretaryWright) July 9, 2026
Wielicki’s appointment signals a course correction toward true scientific rigor and away from narrative-driven alarmism.
If the USGCRP returns to its statutory mission, which focuses on objective assessment grounded in transparent data and reproducible analysis, the American people will be far better served, and public trust in scientists may begin to recover.
Real climate science does not fear scrutiny, and under Wielicki’s leadership, it finally won’t have to.
Do I see a faint glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel?
Hope so.
Yes, but in the absence of virgins, he’ll have to do.
It’ll last until the next Democrat administration.
With a line up of the talent detailed, I am looking forward to their work.
“Global Change”? How about changing the name for starters. It’s dumb.
About 80% of the globe is water, ice and snow. Activities of humans can have no effect on these large masses.
Yeah. I’ve been looking at historical documents and they came up with that gem ~50 years ago.
Dr Matt is a real scientist and a great educator. He was forced out by the baying green mob, in the same way as Roger Pielke Jnr and most scientists who didn’t go along with the enforced political ‘consensus’. His gentle, patient manner in presenting real climate science to those of us without the intelligence to work it out for ourselves, will be missed by his subscribers. I can only hope that he is allowed to succeed for a long time in the swamp, as Americans and the whole world will benefit greatly from his wisdom.
It’s a great start if four hundred ‘scientists’ were replaced with five. Assuming $100,000 per scientist in salary (never mind expenses), that’s a saving of $39,500,000 of taxpayers’ money in salaries alone.
“Wielicki’s appointment signals a course correction toward true scientific rigor and away from narrative-driven alarmism.”
Let’s hope so.
From the May 23, 2025 EO, “Restoring Gold Standard Science” in Section 4: “(c)When using scientific information in agency decision-making, employees shall transparently acknowledge and document uncertainties, including how uncertainty propagates throughout any models used in the analysis.”
Does this seem too rigorous? Even the Climate Working Group, having authored the DOE’s “Critical Review” report last year, did not open the door to this obviously critical issue about the (mis)use of time-step-iterated earth system models for investigation of the influence of incremental CO2, CH4, N2O on the climate system.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
This is important. We’ll see what happens. Best wishes to Dr. Wielicki to have the fortitude to open that door.
That is all for now.
Thanks for mentioning the iteration problem and its neglect, David.
Propagated uncertainty seems to be a radical idea in climatology, even among the AGW skeptics.
Pat, correct me on this if I am wrong. It seems to me that the propagation of error, and therefore, the growth of uncertainty, is a function of the number of steps or iterations as well as the size of the measurand and its uncertainty. Thus, the uncertainty can be expected to grow faster if there are many iterations. That is, if each step represents a year, the annual uncertainty will grow more more slowly than if each step represents a second. Have you explored this?
Clyde, yes, I have explored that. In fact, your caution was a standard objection early-on, raised even by Nick Stokes.
The answer is that the model mean uncertainty in simulated LWCF is assumed to vary with the step-size. The annual mean ±4 Wm⁻² uncertainty applies only to the annual step-size I employed in the paper.
The iterative step in a super-computer simulation is ~30 min. However, the global 30-min change in cloud type and fraction is literally unknowable. So, the 30-min error can’t be evaluated. Nor can a 30-min multi-model mean calibration uncertainty.
Operationally, the problem is resolved by allowing the calibration uncertainty to vary with the step-size. This is reasonable given the notion that a 30-min change in global cloud cover is very small.
Dividing the annual mean 16 Wm⁻² variance by 17,520 yields a 30-min multi-model mean uncertainty of ±0.03 Wm⁻².
This produces a per-step uncertainty of ±0.0126 C. Using equation 6 in the paper taking the root-sum-square, after 100 years, the uncertainty in projected air temperature is sqrt[(17520×100×(0.0126)²]= ±16.6 C.
This uncertainty is correct in the context of the paper.
The 30-min multi-model mean uncertainty is not known. Indeed it’s not knowable.
If the day comes when the numbers are known then a physically accurate uncertainty can be calculated. It may well be different than the estimate I made, and my suspicion is that it would be much greater.
“… granted anonymity over fears of reprisal.“ Beware the deep state. Apparently there are still those within the program or related offices whose mission will be to undermine Dr. Wielicki’s leadership. It looks like he will have some house cleaning to do.
While a teardown and reconstruction is needed, a house cleaning would be an improvement. However, with the huge extent of opposition, he might be able to rearrange some knickknacks in the kitchen.
A man of highest professional integrity – he deserves good things for his leadership and putting integrity above salary.
I have followed Dr. Wielicki for some time on “X”. He is thoughtful in his criticisms of current climate science. He is not strident or abusive, rather he is capable of using data to make point that is seldom refuted.
My recommendation to Dr. Wielicki: Require every submittal of data or analysis to have clear definitions of “climate” and “climate change” used in its production.
And every other term used.
“about one year ago, the Trump administration booted out 400 climate cultists who were involved in this assessment. They were replaced by 5 more credible professionals.”
Booted 400, replaced by 5.
That pretty much diagnoses the problem with modern universities, and virtually every government bureaucracy. Moralizing deadwood.
Reminds me of the Twitter to X transformation. Musk booted 80% of the employees and ended with a fully functional company.
Gratulacje!
Here is a good overview of the USGCRP:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48478#fn16
Apparently their website just went down but here is the latest National Climate Assessment (which I call the National Scare):
https://nca2023-globalchange.govarchive.us/
It is a monster document with endless alarmists graphs and scary text produced over a period of several years by hundreds of people.
Weilicki has a huge job on his hands and may never have run a crash federal program before. He might do something simple since the alarmist impacts packing these reports do not exist. He should explain that climate change is mostly natural, the UHI being an obvious exception. He could also address the common fallacies underlying these alarmist reports.
Note that the USGCRP does not coordinate the federal climate research program which is often erroneously reported. It just collects annual expenditure data from the 13 or so research agencies and does an Annual Report called Our Changing Planet. Last issue seems to be FY 2023 when expenditures topped $4 billion.
See https://globalchange.govarchive.us/reports?topic%5B122%5D=122/
Hopefully a lot less now thanks toTrump.
It is not clear to me who the ‘author’ of this re-posting is. Is it Leslie Eastman, Charles Rotter, or someone else? Can someone clarify the authorship?
More good news.