Why is Bitcoin forking?

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

There was a study about butterflies migration and everyone just took it as fact that it was due to climate change. When another study came out proving that it was wrong (with more science), the original study was never withdrawn and is still used to this day as an example of climate change.

It's not even a debate that CO2 is causing warming. It's that CO2 isn't causing it at anything near a catastrophic rate.

It's used by the likes of Al Gore to make billions from things like carbon credits and the politicians to attack their political opponents. It's not the first time the scientific community was used as pawns in someone else's game.

So much of the data is either: changed, doctored, or even hidden (climate gate brought out many issues with some of the leading climate scientists and showed that much of the data isn't actually being peer reviewed. I thought this would bring about a discussion about real science...but it was covered up and scoffed at by the scientific community because it made them look bad.

We are spending so much money on global climate change, while ignoring many other pollutants that might actually save some of the environmental disasters that we have created(which cost much less to fix).

You don't have to be a climate scientist to see bullshit science. I was part of the academic world for many years and it's unbelievable how much politics plays into the research that is published. It's why I left it forever.

This post will probably be modded down. Mostly because when something against the narrative is posted here on HN, it's not even discussed. The person who posted it is bullied into submission or silenced because you not only can't see something you disagree with, you can't bear to have someone else see it either.

I see it as the tactics of the intellectually inferior. Those insecure people that can't have ideas discussed freely and without prejudice because it goes against their core beliefs.

Even the name 'climate skeptic' is a pejorative used to make the other person look like they are an idiot that knows nothing about the climate or science. This has no place in science. Science should not be about personal and ad hominem attacks.

That's the funny thing: I'm demanding more science and the climate change zealots are basically saying that the science is 'settled'. The science is never 'settled'. When it is, it's called religion.

I'm sick and tired of politics ruling over science and you should be too.

Politics is about ethics. In this case: the ethical consequences of certain technical choices (under which I include a consideration like 'I will make less money'). (Expert) knowledge of the technical choice itself is mostly irrelevant for those parts of the debate. We can discuss the military merits of e.g. nuclear weapons until kingdom come, but if I'm opposed to them on humanitarian grounds, no amount of technical merits will convince me.

As for the quote, it depends on context. In a context where expert knowledge is necessary to make useful contributions to the debate, there is nothing redeeming in the quote. It merely encourages people to be disrupt it. In the more general context where you ask a researcher to be able to explain his work: of course he should be able to dumb it down. But not for the purposes of subsequently engaging in fruitful discussion with him.