The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change released a study presenting the human impact on global warming as greatly exaggerated. It shows that man has so little contribution to climate change that is doesn't cause any harm at all.
The Republicans and the House Energy and Commerce Committee are now working together to have the environmental officials explain and fix the problem it caused to the fossil fuel industry and have the people who lost their jobs restored.
After the discovery, the same 47 scientists and scholars from the Heartland Institute are now reviewing the rest of the papers that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) previously approved.
"This volume provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmist reports from the IPCC, which are highly selective in their review of climate science," the authors write.
Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast ruled out that human impact on global warming is too small that the natural factors outweighs whatever humans have done to contribute.
Global warming can be observed and felt especially in the Antarctica where daily reports show that the ice were melting rapidly. However, there is another report that the sea ice in the Arctic sea has increased and its at its highest since 1979. The researchers from the institute explained though that it was the sun's natural cycle to be blamed and not the humans.
While the Republicans seemed to be convinced about this new report, a few Democrats were skeptic.
"The evidence is overwhelming and the science is clear," said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz to Fox News. "The threat from climate change is real and urgent. The basic science behind climate change is simple. Carbon dioxide makes the earth warmer, and we are admitting more and more of it into the atmosphere."
The researchers declared no conflict of interest on their report and would like to stay away from political issues.
Bast commented that there were no actual models used in the studies they have reviewed. "Point to the model that predicted this hiatus," he said to Fox news. "No increase in violent weather , no increase in hurricanes. All of this and we're still supposed to believe the models... models they picked because they supported their political interests, not because they represented good science."
