For the last year or two I have posted, in this forum, probably one or two items per week in which climatology experts have warned about increasing evidence of negative effects from global warming. Experts from NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, etc. not the grudge groups like GreenPeace or Eco-Whiners.

There are have been reports of increased Antarctic and Greenland melting, reports of glacial retreat, reports of decreasing Arctic ice coverage, reports of warming temperatures, increasingly chaotic weather patterns, etc.

Not a single university/research center has published anything claiming evidence of glacial advance, increasing ice coverage, global stasis, global cooling, or anything of the sort. Not a single climatologist has published a computer model conflicting with the majority view. Not a single published study has supported the possibility that this is a normal climate cycle.

I am puzzled by the continual parade here at SAGG of self-anointed (and anonymous) people who, citing no research, continue to attempt to throw FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) at the issue of global warming.

Are they being paid to do this? Are they well-meaning but befuddled? Are they members of the "just say No" club?

I don't see them jumping up and down questioning whether other aspects of science are correct. They aren't claiming computer models of plate tectonics are wrong. They aren't digging up obscure and overturned theories of Java Man. They aren't claiming the earth is flat or men didn't land on the moon? So what is the truth behind this charade parade? The pattern clearly indicates it isn't accidental. One leaves another arrives within 48 hours.

Any thoughts about this sorry lot?

Part of what troubles me as someone reasonably well educated in the sciences is that underlying their delusion is something unstated but important. They seem to believe that we can increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere without it having any affect at all. That the laws of chemistry and physics don't apply when it involves them giving up their profit-margin or whatever.

DA, not are we pumping CO2 into the air we breathe, but we're chopping down or burning all the trees as well.

As a former Track Athlete, I admire Economy of Effort, but this is ridiculous.

DA, the posts to which you refer have an extraordinary pattern that, to say the least, suggests a good measure choreographic coordination. They are characterised by a fervour and aggression that's inconsistent with the simple presentation of a scientific viewpoint. I've long since drawn an obvious conclusion which, although it can't be proved, has a sufficiently high degree of probability to cause me to ignore those threads.

I sense a similar "vibration" in a lot of these negative posts. Surely to goodness there can't be THAT many people out there who are oblivious to the obvious? Who can't learn from History? Who don't think that, with 6 Billion Souls on this small world all wanting to drive around in cars and carry on making babies, we can go on this way?

Or is man really that self-destructive? Only a few short decades ago we discovered radio-active elements that, properly managed, could provide cheap electricity for all the people who share this world. What did we do with these gems, this miraculous discovery? We made bombs.

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.?

Have you read any of Morgan's threads? Fervour and aggresion are his patented trademarks.

Well docT and Canuck ... I have received the considered opinions of others, some in this thread and some by private message.

And the unanimous opinions is that it is choreographed and contrived.

So guess what ... game is over ... YOYO!