I hate to agree with you, Malcolm, but the "language and music are essentially the same thing" seems fairly accurate and appropriate here.

One of the problems of what passes for "science" is that what seems obvious often doesn't get tested. The measurements they purport to have made are the boring sort of thing that sometimes does need to be done. (And solid "science" depends on many people being able to do the same thing and get the same result.) If their data, and documentation of the method, support the result that they found, then others may be able to do some other experiment instead of that one.

My main objection is that they attempted an unfounded (from their results) extrapolation to a cause/effect relationship that is apparently more a result of their "wish to show" something than it is a result of their experimental result. I'd write that off as the attempt for a "snappy headline," ... perhaps.

As to the preceding annnonnymingous comment - "They say a lot, but give no results..." you have to consider the source. New Scientist is a place where people report that they've done something. While it does, occasionally, give some useful information, it's not the place where you expect to see the full report of what and how (far too boring for the subscription base). Hopefully, the real report will be in some obscure journal to be seen only by those who can actually use it. Certainly the authors can (and maybe even will) be called for discussion with those who are professionally interested, now that they've announced the existence of their result.

John