__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...

Oh man...

...mere months ago we were told Mars surface probably can't support life.

And I'm sure many of you can recall countless "tit for tat" claims over Mars' ability to support Life now or in the past.

Can't they make up our minds?!

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I was unaware that the same scientists were involved in both studies...oh wait, they weren't...

Nevermind...

edited to add...I'm assuming that you meant "make up their minds" as the way it is written makes no sense.

Being able to reproduce at -1°C does not mean being able to flourish on Mars. For a start, the temperature on Mars is often a lot lower than that (remember, the Martian winter is cold enough to precipitate CO2 from the atmosphere).

For another thing, the atmospheric pressure on Mars is a lot lower than Earth's, so those (terrestrial) microbes are unlikely to have any specific adaptation to cope with that.

Thirdly, the surface of Mars is very, very dry (including at least the top few metres of "soil").

Finally, the surface of Mars receives significantly more harmful radiation than Earth's. Not only does Mars have no ozone layer (hence more UV reaches the surface), it also has no magnetic field of any significance, so (combined with the thinness of the atmosphere) solar wind particles can potentially reach the surface.

I daresay that a microbe may one day be discovered that has some tolerance to all of these adverse conditions, but to say that an organism may flourish on Mars merely because it has been observed to reproduce at -1°C is a very large stretch. It is certainly not supported by the data.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

Nonsense, but I'll expound:

Can't the scientific community and the media to whom they release info make up our, the common folk who read about it, minds?

Make sense?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

OK, so whom do we call up to complain about the "false advertising?"

And how does this stuff reach us after or through peer review?
Has science succumbed to sensationalism?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Rather the media reporting on science. I guess when you report something space related, anything hinting the possibility of life on Mars(or elsewhere outside of earth) demands screaming headlines. Just remember the infamous
Seti-signal farce by the BBC sometime ago.

Also this seems to apply to any potential problems with shuttle missions.

Agreed, but so called science writers from the various sources oft used by "scientific communities" such as BAUT are perpetuating the stuff as well.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I think the reason is simply that the prospect of any kind of life, past or present on Mars is just very exciting. But I too get annoyed with the constant "no life never" vs "life possibly abundant" battle that seems to be going on with science journalism concerning Mars. At least in the mainstream media.

I very much agree, but I don't see it as restricted to life on Mars science.

It's with all science, IMO.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Not to me.

You have one news article about speculation by one group that says one thing. You have another news article about speculation by another group that says something else. In either case, we won't actually be able to draw a conclusion without evidence from more Mars exploration. This is hardly new, there has always been speculation.

So what's the issue? Do you want a government edict against speculation? Or perhaps a law to proclaim the One Truth, regardless of the scientific evidence (or lack of it)?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Probably press officers, writing press releases and trying to make them appeal to a wider audience. I imagine that the paper that is in the scientific literature is rather less sensationalistic.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

I can't think of anything that would really flourish on mars, but I imagine there would be places where bacteria could flourish in mars. Provided there are rocks that are warm enough for liquid water to make them damp then bacteria could live and multipy in them as they do here on earth. Bacteria live many miles beneath the surface on earth and I imagine it is possible they do the same on mars.

Of course, you are right. I was referring to the surface of Mars.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?

I'm not actually sure I'm right. I would imagine there are places with warm wet rocks on mars, and they may actually be quite extensive, but I don't really know. It has been suggested that there could still be geological hotspots, or at least warm spots in the crust of mars. These might provide areas suitable for life, or much of the crust might be suitable at a deep enough level.

Well, I think moist cracks deep within the bedrock would be a more hospitable location for microbes than the surface. Less radiation, probably warmer, and a much better chance of finding water (liquid or solid) than on the surface.

__________________
The quarrelsome oarsmen were rowing,
The great violinist was bowing;
But how is the sage
To tell, from the page:
Was it pigs or seeds that were sowing?