data. niteowl (13:53:14) : Thank you for the link to the newsletter. I agree with your conclusion from this account that Ross Hays' first trip to the Antarctic would have been 2005/6. I do not understand the apparent inconsistencies in statements, so it is a pity that Mr Hays is not here to clarify. Mr Hays is doing interesting, important and doubtless challenging work, and I wish him well in his new career. He is entitled to his view as to whether the Antarctic is warming or cooling, although I do not personally think he is entitled to impute questionable motives to others, as he does in his final paragraph. Regardless, I think it entirely reasonable to question the extent of his direct experience, which he presents as a basis for his judgment. It is evident that the matter of his direct experience is considered to be significant, as the title of the original post here shows. It is not ad hominem to question what that experience actually is, nor is it ad hominem to point out conflicting statemenst regarding it. Stating otherwise suggests an understanding of 'ad hominem' that I certainly don't recognise. It occurs to me that some posters here think it is important to question the factual basis of the work of Hansen or Mann, for example (and that some are evidently prepared to suggest that these scientists are fraudsters), but not to have questioned basic factual matters in a statement from someone whose position accords with