Generally the paper would at least be glanced at before unloading the criticism though right? Did parent even know how much phosphine they'd found when making the above comments?
I assume the OP, being an expert in a relevant field, has enough information to form and express an opinion. Myself, I am not an expert in a relevant field and so I have no idea whether one needs to know how much phosphine was found before smelling a rat.
From what I've read, the amount of phosphine plays a role, i.e. if there's lots of it it's a stronger sign of life. However, that's what I've read in the lay press that reports on the opinions of experts. Now, the thing about the opinions of experts is that there are always other experts that hold a completely different opinion and when you read an interview with one expert they very strongly support their own opinion, but don't really do justice to the opinions of others- because that's not their job. So it's often hard to know which expert's opinion is closest to the truth by reading what one team of experts tell the lay press. Science is a debate, after all- but not a debate carried out in news sites and internet forums (or at least not primarily there, I understand theoretical phycisists like their internet flame wars).
So, personally, before accepting anything as evidence of this and that, I'll just wait patiently until the dust has settled and the experts have agreed to disagree.
I wish more people did that when it came to my own area of expertise, btw. What I say above is what I've observed on reportage of my own field in the lay press.
As I see it the probkem us he said "You can make phosphine from entirely abiotic common elements and salts literally hundreds of ways" but doesn't state them, and got justly criticised for it.
