The 'scientific facts', whatever that actually means, does not matter if the discussion is politically loaded while at the same time other individuals try to persuade the person that their views on climate change is wrong and that they HAVE TO change their mind. A layperson will not be approaching the issue from a scientific point-of-view, why would they, they are not scientists. Also note that being skeptic of climate change, does not mean that you disavow everything scientific, it just means that they are uncertain about these 'scientific facts' about climate change. Also also, it's not about global warming, the change in temperature of the globe is not uniform or one-directional, it's about climate change.

The 'scientific facts', whatever that actually means, does not matter if the discussion is politically loaded while at the same time other individuals try to persuade the person that their views on climate change is wrong and that they HAVE TO change their mind. A layperson will not be approaching the issue from a scientific point-of-view, why would they, they are not scientists. Also note that being skeptic of climate change, does not mean that you disavow everything scientific, it just means that they are uncertain about these 'scientific facts' about climate change. Also also, it's not about global warming, the change in temperature of the globe is not uniform or one-directional, it's about climate change.

It's up to proponents to prove it, and as far as I know, there are no actual papers proving global warming. Skeptics may not be scientific, but they have not so far been proven to be wrong. Perhaps they are 'scientific' by default until such time as global warming is indisputable or not

It looks like that IPCC itself (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) - can be considered as a skeptic.

There are numerous references are being made on the IPCC reports by the climate change proponents. However, IPCC reports published in various years seem to contradict to each other. Some reports state that humans caused the climate change due to one factor - producing excessive level of CO2. At the same time, other IPCC reports published earlier state the following: (see https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm)

"The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve surprises.." and "We simply do not fully understand the causes of climate drift in coupled models (see Chapter 8, Section 8.4.2)."

This quotation is the last line in https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/504.htm

Bullet point #6 summarizes it all in the link: https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the reliable long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Therefore, on one hand the IPCC promotes the idea of excessive amount of CO2 as the main reason for climate change but, on the other hand, attributing all climate change to only one factor-human generated CO2-is NOT substantiated because the long-term prediction of climate states is not possible. I believe that this is one of the main points of the skeptics. And I believe that it is a valid point.

See also the link (IPCC). 2001, TAR, section 14 Advancing our understanding Working Group I: The Scientific Basis https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

See also the last bullet point in https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm Working Group I: The Scientific Basis-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY”

My point is that if someone is uncertain about the scientific facts then they should also support it with scientific facts. Skeptics are also free to use the observation, modelling framework and other resources alike non skeptics to ascertain their claim scientifically, if they have. Then why don’t they use such resources and build scientific foundation to support their claim scientifically. I do agree there are uncertainties persist (being talk by climate scientist including IPCC also for example- - the snow-albedo feedback etc..) this is may be because more comprehension is required to understand the complex interaction and this indeed on the ongoing road of learning.

* Must not forget the disastrous impact of climate change *

Sadly enough, proponents of the argument that global warming and climate change caused by man-made use of fossil fuels is a "hoax" being perpetrated by people whose doomsday predictions are not supported by scientific evidence are logically correct when viewed in the context of the totality of all known causes of global warming and climate change, which, in a final analysis, including both Mother Nature and Mankind. This is a rhetorical conundrum, because of the inherent polarity of the dispute (Mother Nature versus Mankind) and also because of the rigorous compartmentalization of scientific research and methodologies. Thus, my answer to the question is categorically, but not factually based: Yes, the skeptics, e.g., @Thierry De Mees (see his foregoing comment above), ARE being "genuinely scientific for NOT considering Global Warming a scientific fact," on the grounds that, as subsequent answers (see above) observe, a "scientific fact" calls for challenges that are similarly based on "scientific facts". Therefore this Question expresses concern for the global problem(s) of (1) carbon dioxide overproduction caused by excessive fossil fuel burning by humans; and (2) global climate change, only by logical implication. There is a consensus that (1) is no longer, realistically viewed, in doubt; however, half of the world is unaware of the enormity of the problem if ignored for the future, and therefore, contra argumentation serves the critical purpose of "spreading the Word". And (2) is a "can of worms" problem, i.e., similarly to (2) global climate change can not be attributed exclusively to Mother Nature or to Mankind but to a multiciplicity of causal factors on both sides of the equation.

Dear all, we have nowadays the LOWEST CO2 levels of ALL TIMES on Earth, EVER! No life is harmed by levels that are a ten-fold or twelve-fold of it, as follows from the history chart of CO2 and of life on Earth! Species adapt or disappear, and many new species appear!

Only natural catastrophes can cause extinction (dust for instance).

CO2 levels of ALL TIMES were measured at Antartica, which means there was ALWAYS ice there!

Natural CO2 production is at least a 20-fold (said by human-climate-change believers) of human production, yearly.

Human-made climate change is a hoax! NATURE IS FINE! We cannot bring back Nature since it already produces a 20-fold of human CO2.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear all,

Acts:

1- There have been several climatic changes throughout history (Erik the red, called "green land" to Greenland)

2 - The percentage of CO2 emitted by mankind is very small compared to the total emitted by Nature. If in a greenhouse you increase the opacity by that percentage the temperature has hardly any changes

3 - If the climate change is a natural process, it does not matter if it accelerates or decelerates, in the end it will arrive. And it makes no sense to spend resources trying to avoid the inevitable, those resources should be used to adapt to these changes.

4- It is estimated that less than 80% of the studies in the "scientific" journals are reproducible, the studies are accepted only by the institution and the established line. A study that contradicts that line will not be accepted for many evidences that prove

5- Academic positions are granted by number of publications without looking at the content. A REAL scientist with 6 or 8 annual publications will lose the position in favor of someone with 100. Obviously those publications will be rubbish but if they follow the line marked by the magazine it will be easier to publish

6- None of the catastrophic predictions of those same studies about 10 -15 years ago by 2020 have been met

7- It is repeated that the Arctic ice decreases but it is hidden that the Antarctic ice increases

8- The media always lie and manipulate, there is a lot of money at stake with that eco-scam

9- It is not the first eco-scam we suffer. Nobody remembers when diesel engines were ecological and when plastic bags with their distinctive bio-degradable saved the forests?

That anyone draw their own conclusions and remember that the scientific method, the real one, not all that crap, is based on the reproduction by third parties. If your hypothesis is that a small amount of CO2 from the total can regulate the weather you must prove it

Thierry De Mees

If skeptic feels that scientific facts are not convincible to support global warming, that is ok. Because everyone has their own prospective. But I may also like to add my perception to look at the chart you shown.

Please let me also bit be philosophical this time to interpret the chart. I agree the chat depicts the “we have nowadays the LOWEST CO2 levels of ALL TIMES on Earth”

BUT to me, it precisely support that the global warming is a scientific fact. Yes, the global warming is a scientific fact.

To me chart says that since from the million years ago (when CO2 was high), the Nature started working to curb the CO2 because of its profound ecosystem around (ecosystem was obviously rich that time). See from the chart after great work (Nature) with the its profound ecosystem and its enormous capability, with the time nature could reduce the CO2 amount (as it profoundly decreases with time). Since the response time of Co2 is longer so the Nature struggle to keep it (Co2) down was certainly longer.

Now think that when Nature was in process of the CO2 decrease in the atmosphere –ecosystem experienced sudden variation due to mankind interference for example - a population explosion followed by industrialization and many other unnatural systems intrusion which substantially disturbed the Nature by delimiting its ecosystem power and even making it worse. And now since ecosystem is not profound to handle the small CO2 increase also so impact is more and much before the million-year Nature was profound to bear the CO2 large amount but now not.

It is as simple as a human being, when one is stronger can bear much pain but when once become weaker then small pain is also become intolerable and then it essentially disturbs the surrounding.

Hope you understand what I am saying here. These disturbances not only perturbed the Nature but degraded its capacity to hand the CO2 system by adding more CO2 in the system.

To me, chart precisely depicts this (above) story and even this is supported by scientific facts.

Best wishes,

Vaid, B. H.

Thierry De Mees

Note: I would appreciate if you may please provide me the source of the your CO2 Chart used.

Dear Bakshi Hardeep Vaid , with your kind of reasoning, asserting that a graph that is actually decreasing since all times, is in your interpretation alarmingly increasing, I think, you switched Nature with the Stock Market. Your story is just fantasy!

Did you read what Sergio Garcia Chimeno wrote? Have you any comments on that?

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry De Mees ,

Thanks for the reply. I think you missed the point. As I mentioned in my reply that I am putting the things (and added let me) in philosophical way. Because scientific facts not been encouraged by skeptics as I felt. So tried another way.

Besides, i am not been convinced if media and other scientific community been blamed for not reporting what skeptics wish. May read IPCC reports, glad to tell that scientific community do add all uncertainties in the line of climate change. And note those are under comprehension.

As I told perception is perception and it is always good to learn other perception.

By the way may you please share the source of your CO2 Chart used.

I appreciate if you may provide the reference for the chart.

Ok, based on chart shown (Please refer your attachment).

If you look at the smoothed chart more extensively you may notice CO2 increase is precursor to the Extinction of every period. Through thresh hold of CO2 leading to Extinction of the period is different for different period. But every time when CO2 increased it lead to Extinction of the period.

Remember, in the present period also CO2 started increasing and now you may guess based on previous period analysis what is the future if proper action is not well placed. I may add more if needed more clarity.

Thank you!

Best regards,

Vaid, B. H.

One more point, Please don't see in simple term that co2 is decreases as per the chart it means not alarming. It's not simple as looking. Climate interactions is complex process. Need to understand co2 threshold variations and its interactions with the ecosystem. Please read carefully my earlier replies.

Thanks a lot.

Cheers!

Skeptics are driven by politics not by science when they dispute well-established scientific findings that climate change is real and not a hoax. In every country there is always a political party that denies climate change because they espouse business, profit and greed ahead of science and pander to their small base for votes in the next election.

"CO2 increase is precursor to the Extinction of every period". So what? Does CO2 produce extinction or not? NO, it doesn't. Very high levels of CO2, at the bottom of the peaks, NEVER produced extinction. Do volcano eruptions produce extinction AND CO2? YES! Do other natural catasprophes may cause extinction? YES!

The chart was shown by a human-climate-change believer, Paul Reed Hepperly. Please ask him. However, he lost it completely by showing the very evidence that CO2 does nothing wrong with life!

When you are increasingly earning more money for a short time, while being very poor, does that make you rich, as in the past of the graphic, which has levels that are 10 to 12 times your value? NO, it doesn't make you rich!

"Climate interactions is complex process." So, what?

Nature is fine, and has always been! Humans did or do nothing about that, and cannot change that!

How much taxes are you prepared to pay in order to let the multi-billionaires decide what THEY want you to spend money on, instead of what YOU want to spend money on? Or are you now enough brainwashed to help the multi-billionaires to become even richer?

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Thanks!

Let me put the things in very simple and terse

As per the chart (please refer your attachment) it precisely depicts whenever CO2 started increasing and reached the certain threshold it leads to extinction of the period. Threshold value of CO2 for every period is different (see Chart). Chart simple implies that CO2 increase to threshold is deleterious sign for all ages.

Coming to you point

“Do volcano eruptions produce extinction AND CO2? YES! Do other natural catasprophes may cause extinction? YES! “

I agree, and I think this might be the extinction reason for some of the earlier period’s extinction. When human impact was not there.

Now coming to the present period it been analysised and studied (please refer Anderegg et al., 2010; Doran 2009; Cook, et al 2016); Stips, et al. 2016 and reference therein) human and associated action are contributor in the increase in CO2.

Knowing that Co2 is increasing in this period also and I think it is deleterious sign (please refer earlier period experiences) and there is nothing wrong to impede the CO2. If not been done, then it should not lead to threshold of the present period and extinction. There is nothing wrong to put efforts. And for other details please refer my earlier replies.

Would appreciate if you may forward the discussion to Paul Reed Hepperly also. I guess “Paul Reed Hepperly” would be glad to read this discussion.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_feel_that_the_skeptics_are_genuinely_scientific_for_NOT_considering_Global_Warming_a_scientific_fact

Thanks a lot.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

*This is my views based on the Chart. Believe it or disbelief it depends on individual knowledge based perception *

Bakshi Hardeep Vaid : "whenever CO2 started increasing and reached the certain threshold it leads to extinction of the period"

Again, that is utter nonsense! ONly LEVELS count.

At what LEVEL is there extinction according to you?

Best,

Thierry De Mees

@Thierry De Mees

I was expecting this question from you. Because I was feeling you will miss the gravity of the issues and will jump to such queries. For this, detailed complex climate processes and its interaction with ecosystem is needed to comprehend. You also need to work to explore your self. Once you will try yourself you come to know what you asking and is it easy to provide answer. Answer would be "its not easy but very complex". Some points are really tedious to comprehend in the complex system and is under compression.

Please note-- such level values are unknown yet and deserve compression of complex climate processes interaction. Good luck.

Best regards,

Vaid, B.H.

If you are in a garage and turn on the engine, you will not die because of CO2 increase! You will die because of a certain Level. Maybe 80% of CO2.

The historic CO2 chart of the Earth does NOT show such a level. Now, we have 4 parts of CO2 for 10000 parts of air. PEANUTS!

Best,

Thierry De Mees

For your kind information, please note don’t consider it as linear process again!

Hope you know that the Earth receives radiation from the Sun, which provides all the energy to drive the earth climate system. The infrared or so called longwave radiation largely absorbed by gases (CO2 and others) and clouds warms and emits heat radiation and undergo a complex climate processes.

Note: In the gases, the CO2 in the atmosphere is considered to be important because of its vital absorption bands properties and it’s INTERACTION with other dynamical and thermo dynamical features. The dynamic absorption band of CO2 make it more important gas for climate dynamics.

I suggest you to please google (or read useful literatures) CO2 and its absorption band and its interaction with climate system to have more clarity.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

"The dynamic absorption band of CO2 make it more important gas for climate dynamics."

Natural yearly CO2 production is at least 20 times higher than human.

The global CO2 levels are the lowest of all times now.

Alleged "human-made-climate change" is a scam!

Best,

Thierry De Mees

I suggest you to read literature which precisely states human influence on climate. Some reference are already been provide during my initial phase of this discussion. Please check.

For example ---- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4761980/ and also go through the reference therein.

I hope it will give you more cognizance into the issue and may assist YOU to REFRAIN making such statement (for example, your statement "human-made-climate change" is a scam!).

Best regards,

Vaid, B. H.

Bakshi Hardeep Vaid ,

There is since 16 years a missing heat production that the believers claim. https://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Best,

Thierry

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

There is a great deal of confusion between climate change and global warming. For instance, climate change is being linked in with unprecedented rise in hydrocarbon, i.e., fossil fuel, burning, since World War II, which precipitated a dramatic rise in industrialization and also a post-war baby boom, the latter of which necessitated more of everything, including factories to produce automobiles energized by fossil fuels and houses heated by coal. But scientists attribute human made climate change as such more to the cycles of the sun than to the greenhouse effect, which is caused by fossil fuel burning. As I have noted before on Researchgate, climate change has been shown by scientists to be traceable more to depletion of sand and gravel by industries committed to constructing skyscrapers, bridges, highways, and housing developments.

Deforestation is another phenomenon with a dual natural and human made point of origin. The combined power of wind, rain, and fire, on one hand, and on the other, human leveling of land, which, in various ways, simply increases the devastating strength of wind, rain, and fire.

In recent years, the sun has already been helping to raise sea level around the world by melting Earth's top notch (Arctic). If it were not for the ubiquitous presence of humans, Earth would get along just fine. The question is, however, are you, as a skeptic about global warming, being genuinely scientific? It seems that your argument is heavily weighted toward politics. Do you view political science as being included under the rubric of "science" and "scientific"? Or is it not scientific because it is classified as a "social science"?

In my opinion, you are justified in taking a politically informed scientific position. So my question is: What do politicians have to gain by spreading the "rumor" or "falsehood" that global warming is a scientific fact? I had thought that warnings to stop fossil fuel burning are being issued by individuals, including Jane Fonda, who got rid of her gas guzzlers and drives only electric cars, who are ethically committed to preventing any more loss of lives and property caused by global warming. Although I do not favor her strategy of raising consciousness by demonstrating to the limit of legal boundaries, she does not appear to be motivated by any ulterior motive that would undermine her sincerity in being a celebrity activist against global warming.

Dear Thierry De Mees ,

Thanks for the link. This report talk over the well known “global-warming hiatus” in the late 1990’s which was bit surprise for climate scientist and everyone. This essentially gave prospect to everyone including skeptics to raise several queries.

NOTE: BUT later been it has been explored by climate scientist that why it happened and has nothing to do with traditional global warming concept. Please refer Meehl et al., 2011, 2013; Balmaseda et al., 2013; Kosaka 2013 for precise scientific reason (i.e., Pacific Decadal Oscillation).

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

******************************

Ref:

Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Fasullo, J. T., Hu, A. & Trenberth, K. E. Nature Clim. Change 1, 360–364 (2011).

Balmaseda, M. A., Trenberth, K. E. & Källén, E. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 1754–1759 (2013).

Meehl, G. A., Hu, A., Arblaster, J. M., Fasullo, J. & Trenberth, K. E. J. Clim. 26, 7298–7310 (2013).

Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S.-P. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013).

Dear Nancy, "What do politicians have to gain by spreading the "rumor" or "falsehood" that global warming is a scientific fact?"

More taxes, a Socialist controlled state/world, more businesses for their friends who will return money to them, power over people by impoverishment, abolishment of freedom by deciding for the spendings of the ever-increasing taxes, creating an hierarchical elite that rules the rest of the taxpayers, reducing and abolishing middle class by globalization, leverage to their political and financial means by globalization, use education dumbing and scientific fraud to obtain it.

Btw, what does Jane Fonda KNOW about it?

Btw, the sea level doesn't raise. Ask the Maldives.

I think you misinterpret some of my thoughts. I never said we don't pollute, I said that CO2 battle is a needless battle. You don't fight the Sun or Nature! Human-made CO2 is low, and global CO2 is low. All the tax money put in CO2 reduction is wasted money that could better be used for pollution reduction! Pollution issues are priorities, not CO2!

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear Vaid, Bakshi Hardee, it's easy to make justify things afterwards, look at the low IQ Special Relativity, General Relativity, alleged "Dark Matter", alleged "expanding universe", alleged "Dark Energy".

They will always hand-wave the refutations. It's part of their "game".

Best,

Thierry De Mees

Additionally, dear Vaid, Bakshi Hardee, the following hiatus is much more interesting: from 1935 to 1980, the temperature decreased during the biggest industrial boom ever!

The deceptive Club of Rome had no reason whatsoever to make their alarming report in 1980! It was, and still is a scam!

Dear Thierry De Mees,

“Special Relativity, General Relativity, alleged "Dark Matter", alleged "expanding universe", alleged "Dark Energy".”

I am not sure how these listed concepts can be concomitant to RECENT global warming. If you have any valid reference to support its connection to the recent warming, please let me know also. I would also like to go through.

Best regards,

Vaid, B. H.

Additionally, dear Thierry De Mees, I just ask you to have a look at the global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980.

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Eighteen of the 19 warmest years all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS).

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi hardeep

*******************

Ref.: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

Not knowing anything about the Maldives archipelago, I looked it up on the popular Wikipedia, which is often surprisingly informative and accurate. Here is the relevant information I found in response to your statement that the Maldives is not experiencing any noticeable rise in sea level, as follows:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted the upper limit of the sea level rises will be 59 centimetres (23 in) by 2100, which means that most of the republic's 200 inhabited islands may need to be abandoned.[70] According to researchers from the University of Southampton, the Maldives are the third most endangered nation due to flooding from climate change as a percentage of population.[source cited].

Former president Mohamed Nasheed has been highly outspoken about this issue, saying in 2012 that "If carbon emissions continue at the rate they are climbing today, my country will be under . . . water." [source cited].

The President of the Maldives has already undertaken to radially reduce human made carbon dioxide emissions and to assistant relocation of residents who will be the first inhabitants to be adversely affected by the rising tide waters.

These are sad tidings, and I wish that you were right about the Maldives as evidentiary proof that global oceans are not rising as a result both of increase in solar gravitational attraction causing all eight planets to have increased thermal activity in their subsurface layers, and of increase caused by human depletion and burning of Earth's subsurface layers of fossilized organic matter as a legacy of the living creatures, including dinosaurs who once roamed freely on Earth.

Best,

Nancy

Dear Nancy, look at the facts, please, not the "predictions". Best, Thierry

Dear Vaid, Bakshi hardeep , NASA manipulated the figures steadily in order to "fit" the lies. Best, Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry De Mees,

I DISPEL your claim made which says that “NASA manipulated the figures steadily in order to "fit" the lies”. I don't encourage such statements! Please REFRAIN yourself in making such statements.

May you please let me know who has provided you the figure (your attached). I am not see the truth in it (so called different version presented- see your attached figure).

I suggest if you may please think on providing some scientific evidence.

Please refer

Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo (2010), Global surface temperature change, Rev. Geophys., 48, RG4004, doi:10.1029/2010RG000345.

For more details regarding the observation and trends in the Global surface temperature.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

QUOTE: Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

📷 Australia

• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[26][27]

📷 Canada

• Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria.[28][29][30]
• Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[31][32]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[33][34][35]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[36][37][38][39]

📷 Germany

• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[40][41]

📷 Netherlands

• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[42][43]

📷 Norway

• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[44]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[45][46]

📷 Sweden

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[47][48]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[49][50]

📷 United Kingdom

• David Bellamy, botanist.[51][52][53][54]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[55][56]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[57][58]
• Michael J. Kelly, Prince Phillip Professor of Technology at the Department of Engineering, Cambridge University.[59][60]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[61][62]

📷 United States

• Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[63][64][65][66]
• Robert E. Davis, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.[67][68][69]
• Joseph D'Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[70][71][72][73]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[74][75]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[75][76][77][78]
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[79][80]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[81][82]

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

📷 Australia

• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[84][85]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[86][87]

📷 Canada

• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[88][89][90]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[91][92]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[93][94]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[95][96]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[97][98]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[99][100]

📷 Denmark

• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[101][102]

📷 France

• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[103]

📷 Israel

• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[104][105]

📷 Mexico

• Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[106]

📷 New Zealand

• Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[107]

📷 Norway

• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[108][109]

📷 Russia

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[110][111]

📷 Sweden

• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[112][113]
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[114][115]

📷 United States

• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[116][117][118]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[119][120]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[121][122]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[75][123]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[124][125]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[126][127]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[128][129]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[130][131]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[132][133][134]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[135][136][137][138]
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[139][140]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[141][142]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[143][144]

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

📷 France

• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[145][146]

📷 Italy

• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[147][148]

📷 Norway

• Pål Brekke, solar astrophysicist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[149][150]

📷 United States

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[151][152]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[153][154]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[155][156][157]
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[158][159]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[160][161]
• Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML's Hurricane Research Division.[162][163]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[164][165]
• Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[166][167][168]

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences

These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[169][170][171]
• Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[172][173]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[174][175]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[176][177]

Deceased scientists

These scientists published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

• August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[178][179]
• Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison.[180][181]
• Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[182][183]
• Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[184][185]
• Vincent R. Gray (1922–2018), New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[186][187]
• William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[188][189]
• Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former director, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001–2007.[190][191][192]
• Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[193][194][195]
• Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[196][197]
• Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[180][198][199]

UNQUOTE

Dear Thierry De Mees,

I remember I mentioned you before that current global climate modeling have some uncertainties associated with it and even IPCC scientist at all the platform accepted that do mentioned about those uncertainties in their prediction. I think we should respect them for disclosing the uncertainties along with prediction. It is indeed great deed to put the projection along with the real time scientific issues. Since then it been a great progress in understanding the uncertainties as well.

Now coming to the point – You made a claim “NASA manipulated the figures steadily in order to "fit" the lies.” based on your attached figure. BUT until now you did not tell the source of that figure. ----- we need to know that because before you were making the claim based on observation NOT climate modelling framework. I understand modelling framework have some uncertainties (please refer aforementioned text).

May we lets stick to observation for time being to check YOUR claim made.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

The scam of alleged 97% consensus is made by statistic publication counts, not by content.

Expert credibility in climate change

William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider PNAS July 6, 2010 107 (27) 12107-12109; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107

Contributed by Stephen H. Schneider, April 9, 2010 (sent for review December 22, 2009)

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

citation analyses

climate denier

expertise

publication analysis

scientific prominence

Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of climate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth's average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century (1–3). Nonetheless, substantial and growing public doubt remains about the anthropogenic cause and scientific agreement about the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in climate change (4, 5). A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims (6–8). This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy (7, 9–14).

An extensive literature examines what constitutes expertise or credibility in technical and policy-relevant scientific research (15). Though our aim is not to expand upon that literature here, we wish to draw upon several important observations from this literature in examining expert credibility in climate change. First, though the degree of contextual, political, epistemological, and cultural influences in determining who counts as an expert and who is credible remains debated, many scholars acknowledge the need to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in technical (e.g., science-based) decision-making (15–19). Furthermore, delineating expertise and the relative credibility of claims is critical, especially in areas where it may be difficult for the majority of decision-makers and the lay public to evaluate the full complexities of a technical issue (12, 15). Ultimately, however, societal decisions regarding response to ACC must necessarily include input from many diverse and nonexpert stakeholders.

Because the timeline of decision-making is often more rapid than scientific consensus, examining the landscape of expert opinion can greatly inform such decision-making (15, 19). Here, we examine a metric of climate-specific expertise and a metric of overall scientific prominence as two dimensions of expert credibility in two groups of researchers. We provide a broad assessment of the relative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC. Our consideration of UE researchers differs from previous work on climate change skeptics and contrarians in that we primarily focus on researchers that have published extensively in the climate field, although we consider all skeptics/contrarians that have signed prominent statements concerning ACC (6–8). Such expert analysis can illuminate public and policy discussions about ACC and the extent of consensus in the expert scientific community.

We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods). We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher (defined here as expertise) and counted the number of citations for each of the researcher's four highest-cited papers (defined here as prominence) using Google Scholar. We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers. Varying this minimum publication cutoff did not materially alter results (Materials and Methods).

We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate publications authored. Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire climate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC. Therefore, we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE and UE groups. Citation and publication analyses must be treated with caution in inferring scientific credibility, but we suggest that our methods and our expertise and prominence criteria provide conservative, robust, and relevant indicators of relative credibility of CE and UE groups of climate researchers (Materials and Methods).

Results and Discussion

The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2). Furthermore, this finding complements direct polling of the climate researcher community, which yields qualitative and self-reported researcher expertise (2). Our findings capture the added dimension of the distribution of researcher expertise, quantify agreement among the highest expertise climate researchers, and provide an independent assessment of level of scientific consensus concerning ACC. In addition to the striking difference in number of expert researchers between CE and UE groups, the distribution of expertise of the UE group is far below that of the CE group (Fig. 1). Mean expertise of the UE group was around half (60 publications) that of the CE group (119 publications; Mann–Whitney U test: W = 57,020; P < 10−14), as was median expertise (UE = 34 publications; CE = 84 publications). Furthermore, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the most prominent multisignatory statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

📷

Download figure

Open in new tab

Download powerpoint

Fig. 1.

Distribution of the number of researchers (n = 908) in convinced by the evidence (CE) of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence (UE) categories with a given number of total climate publications. Tick marks indicate the center of right-inclusive categories (e.g., 20–50, 51–100, 101–150, etc.).

We examined a subsample of the 50 most-published (highest-expertise) researchers from each group. Such subsampling facilitates comparison of relative expertise between groups (normalizing differences between absolute numbers). This method reveals large differences in relative expertise between CE and UE groups (Fig. 2). Though the top-published researchers in the CE group have an average of 408 climate publications (median = 344), the top UE researchers average only 89 publications (median = 68; Mann–Whitney U test: W = 2,455; P < 10−15). Thus, this suggests that not all experts are equal, and top CE researchers have much stronger expertise in climate science than those in the top UE group.

“The scam of alleged 97% consensus is made by statistic publication counts, not by content.”

Dear, it is a kind of survey done. And, it is not a scientific evidence to dispel the ongoing scientific facts proposed by climate scientist. It is not presenting scientific evidence to support your claim.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

It confirms that the alleged 97% consensus, which is based upon that paper, is a low IQ scam, dear Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep.

Thierry De Mees

Hi, Thierry,

For some reason, I have not found any direct statements that the Maldives archipelago is being inundated by the Indian Ocean. Panic struck the inhabitants because the islands are barely above sea level to begin with, so it seemed logical to fear the worst. There is, however no doubt that the South Pacific islands have already gone under, as everybody read in TIME magazine. Or, is this yet another instance of the media taking a politically motivated stance? From a more scientific standpoint, it just might be possible that some oceans are rising, while others are not. That is now what I am thinking. Perhaps the oceans rest on beds, like the plate tectonic system might not be the same level globally.

Well, this certainly is an unexpected result, which is a relief. As FDR once intoned, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself!"

Best regards,

Nancy

Dear Nancy, indeed! Islands disappear and appear for other reasons as well. If the water of all the oceans are all connected (communicating vessels principle), how would some islands be inundated and others not by alleged rising oceans?

Best regards,

Thierry

"It confirms that the alleged 97% consensus, which is based upon that paper, is a low IQ scam, dear Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep. "

I hope you know the difference between the survey and scientific facts, dear Thierry. The paper you are talking over is a survey done and don't support the any scientific evidence to dispel the global warming scientific consensus drawn based on scientific facts.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

Additionally, Dear Thierry,

Hope YOU remember YOU mentioned " Dear Vaid, Bakshi hardeep , NASA manipulated the figures steadily in order to "fit" the lies. Best, Thierry De Mees "

this was BASED ON your figure attachment "NASA scam_1.jpg"

I am still waiting to know the source of the FIGURE. I am not see the truth in it (so called different version presented- see your attached figure).

Looks that somebody disguised YOU by providing that (NASA scam_1.jpg) figure to YOU. I suggest, please check the source. It will help you and everyone to find the truth.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

"If the water of all the oceans are all connected (communicating vessels principle), how would some islands be inundated and others not by alleged rising oceans?”

In terse you need to understand the physics behind Coastal bathymetry and its interaction to tidal dynamics and sea level rise,.. etc.

For example - Coastal bathymetry plays vital role in changing tidal dynamics and hence to mean sea level rise. Note: Different resolution bathymetry results in different energy dissipation changes.

Did YOU check the NASA reports back in time in order to prove me wrong, dear Bakshi Hardeep Vaid ? Or do you think that I would refer to a peer-reviewed paper stating it, while the journals are banning realistic climate scientists?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

How can you still pretend that there is a human-made climate catastrophe going on, that would be catastrophic within a century, while it allegedly started since a century already, but that we see that the Maldives archipel got no ocean rise at all, dear Bakshi Hardeep Vaid ?

How do you explain that a survey of published papers WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CONTENT, is used to claim everywhere that there allegedly is a 97% consensus, dear Bakshi Hardeep Vaid ?

Dear Thierry,

I am looking for scientific facts NOT survey. I am not looking for any consensus based on survey. Looking for scientific facts which I am not seeing in your sent messages. If you have any scientific fact in your knowledge please share.

Additionally please let me tell you I just thought to assist you in realizing the truth.

May you please share the source YOUR attached figure " NASA scam_1.jpg "

As I told, I am still looking forward to know the source of your attached FIGURE ( NASA scam_1.jpg). I am not seeing the truth in it (so called different version presented in it for example 2000, 2017 and 2019 - see your attached figure).

If you really don't know or forgot the source then also please let me know. In that case please refrain yourself to use YOUR such statements " NASA manipulated the figures steadily in order to "fit" the lies. "

It is really not encouraging. Hope you realize.

Best regards,

Vaid, Bakshi Hardeep

Thierry De Mees

My reaction to your video link, as follows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

is that all of the anti-global warming proponents are shown in camera shots of them ensconced in air-conditioned high rise skyscrapers, presumably with their expensive air-conditioned vehicles waiting to take them home to suburban homes that are also shielded from the environment. This video causes me to think that the controversy is based on social and economic class conflict. Anti-global warming advocates have a different, more lofty and exalted viewpoint that hermetically seals them away from direct contact with the fossil fuel burning environment to which non-aristocrats are relegated on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps the real issue is POLLUTION caused by individual and industrial burning of hydrocarbons. Mostly all lower class and many middle class families live and work in environments polluted by fossil fuel burning. After seeing the video, I see how easy it is for these two classes of people are exponents of protestation against fossil fuels burning, they shout, is causing climate change. In point of fact, they are mini-scientists reporting their experiential findings of suffocating under the hegemonic regime of the vast class of upper middle and upper class scientists who are a small part of those who are doing most of the fossil fuel burning both at work and at home (i.e., frequent flyers). The upper classes's enjoyment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness comes at the expense of the lower and lower middle and middle classes. We live and work in towns, cities, and metropolises filled with pollution from fossil fuels used in industries and on the superhighways by billions of private car drivers commuting incredible amounts of mileages to and from work, school, recreation, et cetera on a 24/7 basis, day and night, night and day. Thus, the video gets increasingly hilarious (hysteria-like) because of the (1) linear thinking, i.e., these so-called scientists fail to build a credible case because they ignore important variables/factors, including the sun's role in global temperatures; (2) tunnel vision; and (3) rhetorically flawed argumentation pointing to the stratosphere, instead of fulfilling their ethical and moral obligations to devote serious consideration to the human beings who are demonstrating to register their dissatisfaction with the blase attitudes of anti-global warming proponents who turn deaf ears to the plight of those fellow human beings who live and work in the exhaust fumes of fossil fuel burning cars, trucks, trains, commercial jetliners, coal burning industries. - Nancy

Dear Nancy, you wrote: "The upper classes's enjoyment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness comes at the expense of the lower and lower middle and middle classes."

By supporting the human-made climate change story, it is you (lower middle or middle class) who is agreeing to be more taxed by the people who enrich themselves by ordering business that allegedly decrease CO2, while obtaining them large commissions.

If they reduce industry and technology due to your agreement, it is the lower middle and middle class that will stop to get health care, cars and work.

It is time to realize the tricks of the upper class to make you worrying about the fake future, by their scams.

It is time to be worried about the real issues, time to apply the very content of Platon's "The Republic" and choose the right people to govern us, with our real consent, not with the scammed democracy we live in, where it is no matter who is elected, still the same continues to occur.

It is time that we, the people, choose to what we spend our money that we deserved by our work, to the issues we really want ourselves.

Kind regards,

Thierry

Thierry De Mees

As you describe the current situation, it is a "vicious circle," spiraling out of control so that there is a "cold war" in which the promoters of fossil fuels are pitted against the promoters of clean energy development. There is a word that you overuse a bit, I think, and more to the issue, is not "genuinely scientific, as this thread is all about. I do not think it appropriate to link profit incentive to fraudulent dishonesty. Do you oppose capitalism on principle? The USA is founded on capitalism as an economic system, with democracy a lagging second. Free enterprise is a founding father's paradigmatic model for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is it not? Benjamin Franklin managed to enjoy the good things in life without trampling on anybody's toes. REturning to your monosyllabic repetition of negative diction, i.e., "scam" and "tricks" are your favorite words. What are their antonyms? You mention Plato's THE REPUBLIC as your ideal, but what is there in it that does not exist today, apparently because the upper class capitalist society globally, from America to Saudi Arabia, hypnotizes everybody, according to your mindset, deploys false advertising to create bad values, i.e., materialistic greed for luxurious burning of fossils from prehistoric creatures and idolatrous worship of nature to polarize hedonistic pursuits in favor of ecological windmills, waterfalls, solar panels, sailboats, electric cars, and recycled garbage.

Well, I am beginning to get your point, that more attention is given to the less interesting things in life. You advocate Neo-Platonic ideals. We should stop letting the poets who write jingles that lead people down the primrose path and neglect what is really important. What is the opposite of laissez-faire and que sera--sera?

In any case, you simply cannot dispute the scientific fact that solar and manmade global warming is a reality. Whether or not you are "genuinely scientific" in not considering GW a scientific fact is, in my view, not in doubt. But you were more so than you are now because of battle fatigue. Take care! Is it possible to relate some passage in Platon's Republic to the question in this thread? I would really like to know.

Best wishes,

Nancy