There isn't enough data to "rebut" this article, just as there isn't enough data to "prove" either case.

Some of Neil's comments are good and well-founded, others less so. As is his prerogative, he has chosen to focus on some aspects of the problem where the water arguments are stronger.

I don't feel that the whole White Mars idea is mortally wounded by this single article, but there are some clear areas of investigation where I can do some work to improve our understanding of flows on Mars.

Who knows, Neil may be right and I may be wrong, in the most simple sense of the word, but there is much scope for surprise and counfoundment.

Science isn't about being individually "right" but about being interested in how things work and in being prepared to try out new ideas and see if they fit better than old ones. If they do, we call it progress. If not, it was investigative research!