"It was also, it turned out, a false alarm. The phosphine not only wasn’t a signal of life, but probably wasn’t even there at all, a swing-and-a-miss of data in

"It was also, it turned out, a false alarm. The phosphine not only wasn’t a signal of life, but probably wasn’t even there at all, a swing-and-a-miss of data interpretation." Why not at least link to the source of such a claim? Is there a paper that says this? I love how a pop-sci journalist can just throw out some definitive claim like that with no evidence whatsoever. As if there's overwhelming evidence for their claim to the point where it's not even worthy of debate. I have no horse in the race either way, but last I heard there were multiple theories about the phosphine readings and just not enough data to come to any conclusion yet. I thought we were waiting for future missions to collect more data. There's multiple upcoming Venus missions, at least one of which is going to swoop up material from the atmosphere for analysis.