LJ wrote:
Unabashed support? Hmmm... I guess that's what I get for trying to have an open mind.

Alex writes:
Relax, I was just needling you. I guess I forgot to put in the smiley face emoticon ;-)

At any rate, some of the questions you raise are cogent. For example, I have problems with the implication (assuming one accepts the episodity of the outburst floods) of sequestering CO2 (especially in liquid form) in the Martian crust for geologically significant periods of time.

A bigger question for me is how to distinguish (as opposed to merely arguing plausibility) the liquid water models from the CO2 models. I do not find it at all satisfying that when every time a paper is published reporting evidence of liquid H2O with respect to Mars, the CO2 accolytes say "No, their interpretation is wrong" or "The Blue Mars crowd simply WANTS there to be water on Mars" or "My CO2 model(s) can produce the same effect." One of the tenets of the Scientific Method is that of falsifiable tests (i.e. tests that can return evidence that tends to prove or disprove a particular hypothesis). In fairness, the Blue Mars community has proposed such tests (e.g. spectral search for carbonates, radar sounding for subsurface water, orbital imaging of geomorphologic water-related features, etc.). I'd feel more comfortable if Nick or others could do the same for White Mars.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii