Well no shit.

 

New analysis casts doubt 

on 'biosignatures' found on planet K2-18b

"Astronomers have been poring over last week's claim 

of the detection of life-associated gases in the atmosphere of a distant planet named K2-18b

 — "the strongest evidence yet that life may exist 

on a planet outside our solar system," 

as a University of Cambridge press release put it."

"Jake Taylor of the University of Oxford, who studies the atmospheres of far-away planets with the James Webb Space Telescope, did a quick reanalysis of the starlight filtering through K2-18b's atmosphere. He used a simple method to look for the tell-tale signals of gas molecules of any kind."

"I wanted to not 'assume' what molecules would be in the atmosphere," Taylor told NPR in an email. "I directly analysed the transmission spectrum that they analysed, in order to have a similar comparison."

"The results he got suggested that 

there's too much noise in the data 

to draw any conclusions."

"Rather than seeing a bump or a wiggle that indicated a signal, "the data is consistent with a flat line," says Taylor, adding that more observations from the telescope are needed to know what can be reliably said about this planet's atmosphere."

"What this new work shows is that "the strength of the evidence depends on the nitty gritty details of how we interpret the data, and that doesn't pass the bar for me for a convincing detection," says Laura Kreidberg, an expert on the atmospheres of distant planets at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany who didn't work on the original research team or this new analysis.

"She explains that astronomers can make a lot of different choices when analyzing data; for example, they can make different assumptions about the physics and chemistry at play."

"Ideally, for a robust detection, we want it to be model-independent," she says — that is, they want the signal to show up even if the underlying assumptions change from one analysis to another.

"But that wasn't the case here."

"The researchers whose claims made headlines, however, are not concerned about this re-look at their data."

"And Nikku Madhusudhan of the University of Cambridge wrote that "there is nothing in this paper that worries me or seems relevant to the discussion about our result. I am only slightly surprised that the bar is so low for a rebuttal!"

Dear Cambridge University:

WHY DOES THIS IDIOT JACK ASS

STILL HAVE A JOB?

AND?

"there is nothing in this paper that worries me or seems relevant to the discussion about our result. I am only slightly surprised that the bar is so low for a rebuttal!"

AI HALLUCINATION 

MUCH?

)

"In speaking with his colleagues about the claims made for a biosignature on K2-18b, he says, the "overwhelming consensus" is that the enthusiasm expressed in making the announcement far exceeded the strength of the evidence.

"Just like the boy that cried wolf, no one wants a series of false claims to further diminish society's trust in scientists," says Stevenson. "Context is important when it comes to science communication, particularly for a hot-button topic like the search for life beyond Earth, and we need to be responsible stewards in that respect."

Notice NPR still hasn't pointed out 

that this was the same team 

that got it way wrong a few years back as well?

I wonder why?