I see ednelson is as nearly as fed up with what passes for science among you folks as I am.

"That said, as a scientist I am more persuaded by normal scientific discourse,

okay... but when your assertions violate fundamental laws of physics, expect to be called on them.

"the published peer-reviewed literature,

why of course you're right, you all got together and said so...

"and reasoned debate by people who know what they are talking about,

okay. your statements violate fundamental laws of physics, such as gas dynamic laws, so...

"rather than someone's (considerable) charm or lack thereof.

If you don't like me now, you're going to like me even less by the time this is all over.

"I do not merely "accept" the White Mars hypothesis (or even Blue Mars for that matter) based on glib pontification

I don't think Nick has ever glibly pontified.

"or ludicrous, mentally unbalanced, and/or ill-informed claims that "the Mars science community is promoting Blue Mars for funding."

It is a clear matter of record that that is exactly what the Mars science community is doing, and not only do I "want" comprehensive crater counts funded, and funded now, I f*cking well demand it, and will do whatever is necessary to see that they are undertaken. And if that means that you or anyone else in the "watery Mars" communtiy has to find another line of work, that is too f*cking bad. While there is no way your self interest will allow you to understand this, there are simply too many lives at stake.

The short way to this goal is to see that White Mars studies are funded. Once the weakness of earlier work on watery Mars is shown to be defective, money for that community will be reduced, freeing money for impact studies.

In closing, I want to remind both sides in this "debate" (which is more like a re-positioning by the watery Mars community) that without accurate crater counts to date phenomena, neither side can really make accurate date claims.

EP