This is how Science works, Barry.

You have a hypothesis, which you test. If one author can make itr work, he writes a paper. That gets peer-reviewed, which means that a couple or three other scientists agree it is plausible.

After a while, given a few presentations at conferences and a few papers in the literature, other scientists either pick up on the idea and run with it, or debate it in a civilised fashion.

Neil Coleman and myself are engaging in just such a debate, which should help narrow-down the range of possibilities of water vs CO2 flows.

many of the other references you collected simply document flows, but do not address the issue of identifying the fluid (although they generally assume - but do not prove - water).

Exceptions to this are Grant's work, which is specific about subaerial crater lakes storing water, and Parker who has Argyre filled brim-full and spilling northwards.

Parker's model is at the limits of credibility, and a series of disconnected channels is a viable alternative explanation, rather than invoking enough water to fill Argyre to the brim, since the basin appears too pristine to have had a progressively shrinking lake in it (or that much ice, either). But then, Parker's vision of Mars is very wet indeed - he's the originator of the Northern Ocean hypothesis in modern Mars research.

Anyway, Barry:-

1) Why post this in response to my link to Jeff Kargel's work about Metal Glaciers on a red-hot earth?

2) Assuming you meant to post in response to my OTHER post regarding organics on Earth and Mars, why try to change the subject? Address the point at issue, and stop worming around and trying to attack other people, rather than defending your own position.

Or is it indefensible?