OK but the evidence is extraordinary! We can read the emails where they set up and run the conspiracies, express confidence that it will work, etc. What more do you need? They literally admit themselves that they're doing it.

> Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned

If you mean the reviews set up by universities then they weren't independent, were they? Actually independent reviews, by people fully outside the academic system, did find them to be engaged in gross conspiracy. But the system is unresponsive to outsiders, being a perfectly closed circle of mutual back-scratching.

Take a look here to see what academia tried to pass off as an "independent review" - they just ended up growing the conspiracy instead. This is a pretty useful document in general for describing the various controversies in the first decade of this century, bad practices, deceptive and manipulative tricks etc and how outside attempts to report them were all ignored or blown off:

https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat...

What you've been describing in this thread is the storybook version of science. It's how things are meant to work, not how they really do. People who disagree with climatological claims aren't deniers, it's actually the other way around: the people who insist that scientists would never do anything untoward are the ones living in denial. The rest of us understand that they're not only human, but humans who directly profit from their tactics and who aren't being supervised or held accountable in any way.