When I say that people are "coming round" to my point of view, that means they aren't throwing rotten fruit any more. :-)

If they were enthusiastic supporters and writing their own papers on the topic, that would be superb, and I could then return to earning money instead of pouring it away.

In Science, it is perfectly possible to understand and sypathise with an opposing point of view, without actually supporting it.

One good aspect of the CO2 vs H2O debate on Mars is that the discussions have been well-mannered, good-tempered, and scientific, rather than descending to name-calling and contradictory assertion. We (the Mars scientists) all recognise the difficulty of proving a case based on remote observational evidence on a very old planet, and we are prepared to discuss possibilities in an open and friendly manner.

Mike Carr still prefers a water model for most, if not all, features on Mars, but he recognises that a CO2 model cannot easily be disproved.

I regard that as a major step in acceptance of CO2 models, but there is clearly a long way to go yet...