Here's the thing (from an admittedly biased observer):<p>The big version of the climate story is about politicization and over-reaching. Assuming for a moment that professional scientists make a course correction and come out with some sort of ethical guidelines about social activism, public standards of proof, open data, and letting some sunlight in the publishing process? These things are going to take a long time, probably several years. All the while there will be little spikes in the story here or there. The main theme, however, may take a decade or more to play out.<p>That means that the story isn't going away as a serious science (by science I mean the practice-of-science) story. It's just going to simmer.<p>I happen to agree that sometimes this particular story leads to long threads of he-said, she-said, but at the same time I think it's a legitimate story about something we're all somewhat interested in.  You could make the same observation about functional programming, or Apple products -- lots of things tend towards pointless conversation. Lots of things appear on TV news.<p>It's just a guideline.<p>And for the record I don't think long threads are necessarily a bad thing. The assumption is that they have limited returns for readers, but if a discussion is a conversation and not a debate I think it's usually helpful to all involved.