StringJunky

It does no service to the pro-cannabis camp.

Yes, it means they've got no objective anchorage to base any thoughts or opinions on; pointless.

From your link here's the abstract and the link to the full text is Here:

Right.

Here's a few scenarios: Future of an expanding universe - Wiki

Just a note: If your cursor gets stuck in the quote box, double-tap Enter with the cursor at the end of the quote. It should pop out onto the next line outside the box. If not, then try clicking outside the box with your mouse or touchpad. Either one of the two works for me depending what mood the software is in.

Will be interesting to see what/if anything happens to the trend.

This page is not rendering properly. Note the line down the sides are missing: Edit: Just noticed that the blue lines stop at post No.5 as you scroll down from the top.

AFAIK Einstein postulated light as c then investigated the effects of assuming that on the other parameters affected by it; it is an axiom.

You are quoting an extract from a personal letter he wrote to the wife of his recently deceased close friend Michele Besso. My guess is he was saying something totally different to what you think it means and its meaning is a personal one meant as consoling words, not a a scientific one.

Right.

OK.

Could it be related to the fact that things tend to move in the path of least resistance and once that's achieved they will stay there?

Whatever the evidence, a journalist - unless expressly stating an opinion in the relevant place of a paper or website etc - shouldn't adopt a position... ideally.

I never saw the neg but if there was it was unwarranted. There is a possibility as I passed my cursor to move to another part of the page it hit a red; that's happened before. I use a touchpad which can inexplicably do things I don't want it to do.

Yeah! I should have said "cage".

I suppose they are adopting a neutral stance in this article, which is what the BBC attempts to do anyway, and that's why they call it controversial; the research rattles the feathers of the deniers. I didn't put it up because it's "controversial". I put it up because I thought it might clear up the problems/interpretation with the data readings that some here might not be aware of.

I was responding to this:

A controversial study that found there has been no slowdown in global warming has been supported by new research. Many researchers had accepted that the rate of global warming had slowed in the first 15 years of this century. But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades. With the revised data the apparent pause in temperature rises between 1998 and 2014 disappears. The idea of a pause had gained support in recent years with even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reporting in 2013 that the global surface temperature "has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years". But that consensus was brought into question by a number of studies, of which a report by the the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) published in Science last year was the most significant. Researchers from Noaa suggested that the temperatures of the oceans were being consistently underestimated by the main global climate models. The authors showed that the ocean buoys used to measure sea temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than the older ship-based systems. Read more (BBC news) >>

A small but important alteration that is actually most often said: "Nature doesn't care what you happen to like or dislike" - and that includes the thoughts and whims of scientists as well; they know only too well themselves. I've yet to see someone with a personally conceived idea push the scientists here against "reasons hard wall". When they say that - or words to that effect - they are only human and will eventually get pissed off in the face of blind intransigence .

I don't have a problem with anybody saying "God did it" as long as it fits with the science

Photons move in a vacuum. They are produced by the excited electrons of the ionised molecules as they drop back down to their resting level..

He's just using those words because he likes the sound of them.

Yes.

I'll go with the latter; it's just jargon specific to that field like any other job that has it's own language peculiarities. I think it's just proper English executed to pack as few words and conveying the maximum amount of information as possible.