February 13, 2002

Not even close. Look at Nick's website. Count the number of times at crucial points of his argument that he uses the term 'probably'.

We already know that the polar CO2 ice caps are disappearing. We know the planet underwent periods of intense volcanism. We see the evidence of intense impacts. The orbit of Mars has eccentricity. Solar fluxes change over time.

Do you guys actually believe that Mars was cold and dry thoughout it's entire formation and evolutionary period, despite what the photographic evidence clearly presents? That's all right with me, I guess, but it just means that the fall will be all the more painful for you.

Why should I even bother? We are just entering the era of analytical geophysics and geochemistry on Mars, or any planetary body (besides Earth and the Moon) for that matter.

The photographic evidence is clear. Nick's theory is DEAD! No amount of numerical fudgery can save it. At it's very best, Nick's theory can say that the flows that have occured in the last few years MAY have been carbon dioxide related, it says NOTHING about what happened in the past, contrary to the obvious and abundant visual and morphological evidence. Even then, he'd still be wrong.

I'm not even going to try to convince you, well, conservative old stodgies is what you are, because I've read a few of your posts, and I can see your total intransigence in the face of overwhelming data.

Read : F. Constard, F. Forget, N. Mangold and J. P. Peulvast, Science 295, 110 (2002)

Be sure to pack your parachutes, guys.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
elifritz@atlantic.net
http://www.atlantic.net/~elifritz

P.S. When is somebody going to get around to totally redoing this board software? Try some canned software. Anything would be better than this.