Kim Rogalin posted on social media (Facebook) about the controversy concerning the (now removed) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (fourth edition) of the National Academy of Sciences Federal Judicial Center’s (FJC). Her post (August 28, 2026) summarized a Federalist article, “After Climate Activism Scandal, 25 State AGs Push Feds to Suspend Grants to National Science Org,” where author Shown Fleetwood wrote:
The problem with that chapter centered on the fact it was not neutral or unbiased, as the science manual is supposed to be, but was written by activist lawyers and academics actively involved in climate lawsuits filed across the nation, plus plaintiffs, advisors, and climate experts participating in those trials. Being written by public advocates of climate lawsuits, while citing materials and using whole sections written by attorneys and academics testifying for the plaintiffs in those lawsuits, doesn’t just tiptoe along the line of the appearance of impropriety. It is flat-out improper and should have been sufficient by itself to disqualify the climate science document from inclusion in the FJC science manual….
The Academy did the right thing by removing the climate chapter from its website and formally investigating.
Jim Cooper Exchange
Enter Jim Cooper, Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, who commented.
What BS. Members of National Academy of Sciences are elected based of quality of their scientific research not their political positions. Members are elected … in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Membership is a widely accepted mark of excellence in science and is considered one of the highest honors that a scientist can receive. Current NAS membership totals approximately 2,700 members and 500 international members, of which approximately 200 have received Nobel prizes.” [NAS here]
I then engaged him as follows:
Bradley: Shame that climate science ruined the reputation of science in general. From Climategate to RCP 8.5.
Jim Cooper: No the shame is folks unwillingness to read the scientific literature . As retired scientist and Scientific Journal Editor, I know that the scientific evidence for Climate Change is robust and the quality of the research on par with other scientific fields. The exchange of personal opinions a few emails did not affect the quality of the published research. I challenge to prove otherwise using links to credible documentation.
Bradley: Are/were you part of the problem? Climategate was about real-time cheating for ‘the cause’ (and getting called out for it) and an admitted promise to attempt to skew peer review. Read the quotations! Secondly, what about all the journal articles based on RCP 8.5. Retraction? Climate models are not science….
Bradley: What about the busted paradigm of RCP 8.5-based peer-reviewed articles? Why did the profession turn the speculative (and now rejected) model scenario into a base case? Politicization or mass intellectual error?
Cooper: Again and again I will remind you and others that posts without links to credible domination for claims are noise. Links please otherwise I will not respond.
Bradley: It is international news in the climate community that RCP 8.5 was formally rejected after a decade of primary use. It was the basis for literally thousands of published climate articles. Roger Pielke Jr. has covered this in detail. Are you following the debate? So again my question: “What about the busted paradigm of RCP 8.5-based peer-reviewed articles?” rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/rcp85-is-officially-dead
Conclusion
My points were never directly answered by the self-anointed authority. If I had made the same case in a journal article, providing a link, what would Cooper have said? My guess is that he would state that it was not a quality journal. Such is the narrative that the experts do not want to disturb.
Climategate lives–and should never be forgotten. As a leading climate alarmist-qua-scientist, Andrew Dessler, stated back in 2009: “There is no doubt that these emails are embarrassing and a public-relations disaster for science.”
Jim Cooper Background
In a previous Facebook post concerning the Climate Change Reality Forum, Cooper wrote:
The goal of this site is: “The Climate change reality forum is an open Facebook group established to reach people with information that differs from the IPCC’s official position on this subject.” IPCC presents scientific research findings and the only valid debate must be with scientific research findings accompanied by full citation of sources not opinions. But I find that the latter predominant thus are not honest discussions of reality.
This led to more than one hundred comments, with Cooper responding to criticism by stating:
It’s your responsibility of prove your claims using data and/or previous published research findings. That’s part of critical thinking, and I repeat in science all statements and/or claims must be backed by citation of credible documentation. Please provide a link to paper where the figure appears….
How true–except when it comes to climate science and other politicized areas of scientific research.