What has become known as "climate science" offers an opportunity to investigate the sociology of science and ask how political biases influence individual scientists. Since the lukewarm political response to the Rio conference, news articles indicate that climate science has a climate of its own – one that's heating up over the inability to convince the public.
According to widely accepted theory, planets evolve from orbiting dust disks surrounding stars. If so, planets trying to form in the dust around one young star didn't have much time. The disk evaporated within 3 years.
The old "crop circle" craze fanned the curiosity of many, till humans were filmed making them. Now, scientists have a different circle mystery, and they're stumped.
Some evolutionary papers are filled with verbs like arose, emerged, and originated. Do these convey scientific understanding, or are they veils concealing ignorance? Is it like saying "abracadabra" to say something "arose" by evolution? A recent paper about sophisticated metabolic enzymes in plants is a case in point.