clonmac, I suspect you don't get a response from Dr Guy because sometimes there is no argument that will change a person's mind. The most futile debate possible is between people entrenched in their views. Your argument about the Antartic is hardly an iron clad showstopper. Antarctica ice may or may not be melting. Big deal. If the ice was growing instead of shrinking would you change your mind and be against the AGW movement? I doubt it.
Do you attribute global warming on a solar system scale to be AGW? (Btw, I don't expect a response)
Actually, if you've read the past posts, then you'd understand my argument. As I said in the past, the debate that I had about ice loss was irregardless of AGW. This was acknowledge by Dr Guy as well. My response (and how it all started) was when Dr Guy claimed that the Antarctic was not melting for the reasons he gave. I responded to show why that wasn't true. No connected ulterior motives or anything like that. I simply showed why it wasn't true.
And for the record, if there was a trend of about 10 years of cooling that, in turn, caused ice to rebuild around the globe, then yes I absolutely would seriously reconsider the theory of global warming. Actually, I wouldn't even need ice to rebuild (because that won't happen right away after a period of warming). But if temperatures were shown to cool for a decade, then yes I start to change my mind about it. I would still be against pollution in general, but I would begin to doubt CO2s effect on the environment.
And yes, there is pretty concrete evidence that shows the Antarctic as a whole has lost ice over the last decade. Whether that trend means anything is another debate that I had never entered.