<Any weather complaints directed at the project would need to be proven, and that would require the lawyer(s) actually understanding weather-patterns. As well as the process employed at the test-bed.

Since when did you actually have to prove cause and effect in a courtroom? Sad to say, but given the "tort case as lotto" mentality that exists in so much of the country combined with poor james-like (you know who I'm talking about) level of scientific education in America, proof is whatever you can convince a jury to believe.

Ask Dow-Corning how much they've had to pay out on silicon breast implant claims dispite the fact that countless studies have proven no ill effects from using them. These studies include some conducted by the federal government, not just those paid for by Dow-Corning.

As for killing lawyers, just be sure to leave my daughter-in-law out of it. She's a corporate attorney for Mailboxes, Etc. and a truly wonderful person. She doesn't have too many nice things to say about most lawyers, either.