Other than that, the story was accurate. So why should we trust NASA as regards global warming?
Amid a flurry of criticism, a NASA-funded team on Thursday backed off the more extravagant, textbook-changing claims they'd made about a bacterium that had allegedly substituted arsenic for phosphorus in its DNA.
The original announcement, made at a NASA news conference Dec. 2, seemed to break a cardinal rule of biology that all organisms need some phosphorus to survive. NASA researchers claimed to have discovered an exotic organism in California's Mono Lake that lived instead on arsenic, thus broadening the types of life that may exist in the universe.
The news made headlines worldwide including a New York Times story that ran in The Inquirer on Dec. 3.
On Thursday, the researchers issued a more modest claim. Instead of saying the microbes had completely substituted arsenic for phosphorus, a new statement says the arsenic replaced "a small percentage" of the phosphorus.
A number of biologists say they'll be surprised if even this stands the test of time.
Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20101217_Backing_off_an_arsenic-eating_claim.html#ixzz18NO20fFi
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else
This actually supports the theory of global warming. It is important for non-scientists, like yourself, to realize that scientific findings become more trustworthy when similar results are found using different techniques in different laboratories. It is best not to believe just one result, especially an unusual result like the arsenic-based life forms, but better to believe the scientific consensus based on the work of many individuals as is the case with global warming.
ReplyDeleteIt's rather presumptuous of you to dismiss me as a non-scientist. In fact I am. I'm a better scientist than those NASA clowns. I knew immediately that arsenic based life was impossible. BTW I've been a scientist long enough to understand that "consensus" has no place in the scientific method.
ReplyDeleteI simply meant that it is better for a non-scientist to believe the scientific consensus, rather than every oddball scientific result that makes the papers. For example, it makes sense for the non-scientist to believe the scientific consensus on phosphorous-based life forms, as you do, rather than textbook changing claim's. The same is true for climate change. BTW I think it is rather presumptuous of you to claim you are a better scientist than those NASA clowns.
ReplyDelete