I am not an atmospheric physicist and neither are you. All the recent water on Mars evidence points diredctly away from your White Mars hypothesis,

Au contraire, mon brave,

The recent evidence for extensive ICE on Mars point strongly towrds it being a frozen globe for essentially its entire history.

and since your "instituitions" (as you put it) obviously support you in it, one has to question them as well too I suppose.

The spelling mistake is yours, on this instance.

All of science is open to question - that's the basic assumption. However, I don't think I've ever called on the name of my institution to support an argument. The ideas live or die by themselves.

I guess if images of liquid water on Mars are taken you will then change your tune?

Of course, (although let's put the caveat of "naturally occurring liquid water", not a science-fair demo of liquid water under Mars conditions, or even a hugely expensive beaker of water transported to mars and poured symbolically onto the sand, or even the eflux from a cryobot melting into the polecap or permafrost)

I would LOVE there to be easily- and often-formed water on mars, since this would lead to a high probablility for near-surface life. This scientific outcome would invigorate the space program and give humankind a goal to strive for.

Unfortunately, I think it's about as likely as the molecules in a dead roadkill armadiilo in Arizona miraculously reforming into an ice cream cone.

But science is science and IF the evidence turns up, I will accept it, declare my previous models outmoded, and begin afresh in understanding how mars really works. That's the way scientists are supposed to work.

Let's face it Nick, you are a renegade scientist stuck on your pet theory with little support from the scientific community -- rather like Dr. Levin. Funny eh?

I'm an extreme in the range of views on the role of volatiles on Mars, but I'm not a renegade. I have a useful degree of support from fellow scientists who encourage me to write technically good papers and extend the debate about the role of volatiles on Mars. I am welcomed at conferences and discussion groups, and I try not upset my hosts.

To quote Nietsche - Whatever does not kill us, makes us strong.

If models of Martian water can survive the challenge of CO2 models, then they are strengthened by it. if they do not survive the challenge, they were not robust enough.

Feel free to exhange the roles of CO2 and H2O in the above sentance. It remains equally true.

Anyway, you didn't address my critique of your ideas of "left over" ozone. Show me any scientific paper that allows ozone to persist for even decades in an atmosphere once the processes generating it are defunct. The "Blue Dot" abstract you linked does not say this.

For a start, have you looked at how TINY the amount of ozone is on Mars?

Until you adress this valid criticism of the whole basis of your model, I'm not going to bother to debate details of it, or "what if's". Prove your foundations first, then move on...