Hi LWS.
Please don't confuse my preference for scientific analysis with any wish not to find evidence of life on Mars. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't think there is anyone (well stand fast religious fanatisism) who would not be delighted to find evidence of life having started on Mars.
As you say, all involved (and they cover a number of countries, institutions and fields) are good Researchers. But I don't think they are steadfastly seeking to validate the current paradigm. Rather they are carefully analysing data and then publishing the results, using the peer validated findings to modify the Mars model. This is quite unlike the (for instance) Mark Levin approach of claiming water puddles based on hasty and poor, out of context analysis.
The basaltic component in the soil, regolith whatever we call it would tend to buffer, but that does not mean that there were not significant periods of acidicity. The evidence of huge volcanic events would in fact dictate highly acid water events despite this buffering effect.
The argument against the Viking experiment being due to biology has nothing to do with the superoxide theory. This arose as the explanation for the anomalous Viking results. A biological cause just did not hold. I posted this logic previously:
1. If A (bio experiments positive) and B (control confirms)then C (biology).
2. If A and Not B then not C.
3. If A and Not B and Not D (GCMS confirms) then definitely not C.
2 and 3 resulted. 1 did not.
Even Dr Levin, who at the time of the landing was contracted to NASA as a team member for the experiment, did not particularly profess a biological explanation until his involment in the book published in the late 90's.
True science involves establishing a model that best explains the available data, and then modifying this model to reflect changes from additional data. This evolving model is the Mars paradigm although Thomas Khun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
proposed that a scientific paradigm addresses what is to be investigated, the questions to be asked with respect to the investigation, how the investigation is to be structured and how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.
Keep the faith Winston. I myself doubt that organics will be found in the top layer of soil. But the ice? Now that is another matter.
