If you think there is not a single reputable source denying the GW Panic, then you are saddly misinformed.There are many research papers showing some glaciers are advancing and that ice balance in Antarctica and Greenland is very close to zero. Eg :
Braithwaite, R.J. 2002. Glacier mass balance: the first 50 years of international monitoring. Progress in Physical Geography 26: 76-95.
"there are several regions with highly negative mass balances in agreement with a public perception of 'the glaciers are melting,' but there are also regions with positive balances?Alpine glaciers are generally shrinking, Scandinavian glaciers are growing, and glaciers in the Caucasus are close to equilibrium for 1980-95." ?.
Wingham, D.J., Shepherd, A., Muir, A. and Marshall, G.J. 2006. Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 364: 1627-1635. "analyzed 1.2 x 108 European remote sensing satellite altimeter echoes to determine the changes in volume of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2003?overall, the data, corrected for isostatic rebound, show the ice sheet growing at 5 ? 1 mm year-."
Davis, C.H., Kluever, C.A. and Haines, B.J. 1998. Elevation Change of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 279: 2086-2088.
?Vertical ice growth rates varied spatially across the ice sheet from -15 to +18 centimeters per year. Overall, the 1978-1988 spatially-averaged change in Greenland ice sheet elevation was reported to be + 2.0 ? 0.5 centimeter per year. Near the west of the ice sheet divide - between 65? and 69?N - the elevation increased by 10 to 15 centimeters per year, agreeing with ice sheet growth rates determined from ground survey and airborne laser altimeter data from 1980 to 1994. Seasonal and interannual variations in ice-sheet surface elevation were reported to be ? 15 centimeters and ? 8 centimeters, respectively.?
Then there?s the view many of us more analytical types, who like to think for ourselves, take about the propaganda, summarized here nicely by a PhD, from a university, satisfying your requirements for credibility. There are several other such contrarian views published by others who also satisfy your criteria.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main....09/ixworld.html?The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike.?
