Originally posted by Phage
rom just about every article about the press conference. Here's one:
"We observed and mapped multiple plumes of methane on Mars, one of which released about 19,000 metric tons of methane," said Villanueva. "The
plumes were emitted during the warmer seasons — spring and summer — perhaps because the permafrost blocking cracks and fissures vaporized,
allowing methane to seep into the Martian air. Curiously, some plumes had water vapor while others did not," said Villanueva. The rate of release is
about 1 pound per second or .6 kg per second.
Right so here's another showing that it's seasonal VARIATIONS meaning that either geological or biological activities are changing in quite short
periods.
The scientists said they have detected seasonal variations of methane emissions over some locations on Mars, but remain uncertain about the source
of the gas.
www.marsdaily.com...
The find is intriguing especially because the researchers say they have detected seasonal variations of methane emissions over specific locations
on the planet.
www.sciencefriday.com...
You may perhaps understand how different the implications are now that i have corrected your partial summary?
The determination of what is more likely depends on the evidence.
Where you feel more comfortable ignoring biology and expending energy coming with geological explanations, right?
Clear to you perhaps. It could be both but I kind of doubt it. I think it's one or the other.
Better to be wrong about just one thing instead of everything? Does your reasoning focus exclusively on doing damage control or are you in fact trying
to learn something when i'm not looking?
I couldn't be happier if evidence confirms life on Mars.
But until then you will happily dismiss all evidence indicative of coming to the conclusion of extant lift before the rest of the scientific community
does? Is that shear cowardice ( i will accept a great deal of caution if your daily bread depends on it) or do you just take pleasure in playing it
safe?
The scientists trying to find the evidence will be overjoyed.
Can you point me to scientist who works for NASA that are assigned to these missions or assigned to inspect the data in their search for life on Mars?
I am not aware that NASA in fact employs exo-biologist or if they are assigned to inspect the data coming from Mars. Perhaps you can show that NASA is
in fact paying someone that will benefit by finding the evidence?
Nah, I won't claim I always knew it was there but I will say I thought the possibility was there.
Good, i mean you don't want to overextend yourself by commiting to something.
Can you point out somewhere I've said otherwise?
No, but i didn't really look.
Since i haven't given you the benefit of doubt thus far perhaps i can do it here and save myself some searching?
Your main disagreement seems to in the fact that you believe it to be 'scientific' to ignore 'mounting' ( never enough until it's blatantly
obvious thought ) evidence until all those who most seriously denied it tells you it's ok to admit it. Why we have to 'prove' that there is life on
Mars when there never was such proof that there isn't is perhaps a more interesting question. Perhaps it isn't strange to you that only those who
attempt to 'prove' something has to jump trough multiple hoops while large sections of the professional scientist can distort and misrepresent both
what we know and what we don't yet know? Why the bias in favor of slowing down research?
Stellar
