Science Over Climate Narrative: Dr. Matthew Wielicki to Lead America’s Climate Research
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.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And the howls of protest will start in three … two .. one …
.
The question has never been “Is the global climate changing?” You can’t look at any segment of time without seeing some sort of change, from the Medieval Warm Period to North American droughts that drove out a lot of cliff dwellers and Midwest indians a century before settlers arrived. The question is “How much of the global change in climate can be attributed to human influence?” and the two follow-up questions of “Is it bad?” and “How many trillions will it take to change that number by any measurable amount?” The answers are respectively, a microscopic fraction that we can’t even measure, not very bad at all, and more money than any sane civilization would funnel into giant governmental boondoggles.
Excellent post!
Third and forth questions are how much harm will such changes do and are they worth doing,
“attempting to deride Wielicki as a “climate critic”.
Yeah, and so what?
You tards headed up health departments and fighting forces with men who thought they were women, cabinet positions with males determined to breastfeed, our armed enforcement services with fanatic inquisitors who decided school parents and traditional Catholics were domestic terrorists, and the entire executive branch with a president who couldn’t find his own way out of a broom closet without a Furry to help him.
Cope and seethe, you jackwits.
There’s no science anywhere near climate on either side.
It lacks serious peer review, meaning review by experts on the tools they’re using, but only peer review by other climate scientists.
If you raise a physics objection in a climate science forum, you get a climate science reply, not a physics reply, even if friendly.
The climate models are fraudulent, based on the simplifying assumptions that were made – before the first climate model was published by Manabe and Möller in 1961. There is no equilibrium climate that can be perturbed by an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration. The concepts of radiative forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity still used in the climate models are pseudoscientific nonsense. The DOE Working Group Report barely scratches the surface the modeling fraud. The authors are still trapped in the IPCC equilibrium climate box.
The issue that has to be addressed by the USGCRP is a simple one.
At present the average CO2 concentration is increasing by about 2.5 parts per million per year. This produces an increase in the downward long wave IR (LWIR) flux to the surface of approximately 40 milliwatts per square meter per year. Show from first principles using the time dependent flux terms coupled to the surface thermal reservoir how this produces an increase in surface temperature and increases the frequency and intensity of ‘extreme weather events’.
For a detailed discussion see
Clark, R., (2024), “A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors”, Science of Climate Change 4(1) pp. 1-73. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202404/17
Roy Clark
Comments on the Report ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate’
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394943471_Comments_on_the_Report_'A_Critical_Review_of_Impacts_of_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_on_the_US_Climate‘
I’m a climate critic. In fact, last week when the heat index was 110 I critiqued it pretty darn hard.
I wish he would pull a Linda McMahon and pledge to shut the entire department down.
When DEI took over academia, I was older than Wielicki. I had seen plenty of racist hiring and had been forced to participate in it. Then came the DEI loyalty oaths etc, and the school hired a new Vice President for DEI. He or she just needed to be Black and have a PhD. I escaped from the toxic environment by early retirement, which also gave me more time to write books. I’m glad that Wielicki and others will try to bring good science back online. Mandating hiring by merit was a good first step.
Leave a Comment