|
I'm willing to take him at his word on the fact that the planet he discovered; a) is a gas giant; and
b) contains *water vapour* in its atmosphere. These are physical facts, and are exactly the sort of thing that astro-physicists (or astronomer if you want to be generic about it) specialise in working out. Now while he might not be a biologist (although he's probably familiar with the basics), the conditions which biologists agree are the most likely to harbour life are those in which *liquid water* exists. And most likely a planet that has an actual surface. As an astro-physicist, I think he's qualified to make the inference, derived from his observations, that such conditions do not exist on this planet. Certainly much more qualified than yourself. But while we're on the subject of taking scientists at their word - you were the one who originally took his statement that there was water on this planet as fact, and then extrapolated that (and ignored all his other 'facts') to get to a completely unsupportable conclusion. So don't get on your high horse about putting faith in the word of invory tower intellectuals now. P.S. If you're looking for a planet that is a more likely candidate for extra terrestrial life, try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c
| 
