There is some merit in suing warmists. Walter Starck at Quadrant Online explains:
In a prevailing climate of political correctness, an absence of formal explicit requirements for honesty, and with peer review subordinate to a common interest in maintaining funding, normal professional and scientific ethics have been significantly abandoned.
Such corruption has been repeatedly demonstrated in a series of revelations of serious misconduct in climate science. Despite unequivocal evidence of misrepresentations, lies, fabrications, suppression of conflicting evidence, conspiring to defy FOI requests and personal defamation of critics, the miscreants have all been cleared by blatantly sham investigations. Worse still, and indicative of the pervasive malaise, has been a widespread response of peers. Instead of condemning obvious misconduct they have sought to excuse, justify or dismiss it as unimportant.
While there may no explicit obligation for due diligence in scientific advocacy, the status of researchers as experts clearly implies it should be expected. Expert opinion without due diligence is an oxymoron, and pretending to expertise while ignoring due diligence rises to the level of fraud.
In any other industry there would be investigations, even serious investigations by legal authorities. Read more »