“Is global warming a man-made causing or natural event?

”This question not just affects companies

but affects the globe because if scientists agreed about the human induction to the natural catastrophe,

any citizen that had fuel- powered car would replace it with solar-powered car or something like that

.However, NIPCC(nongovernmental international panel on Climate Change) tried to disprove this claim

in its 2011 interim report” Climate Change Reconsidered. “This passage would show its use of evidence

in its report , its background

NIPCC is nongovernmental version of IPCC. NIPCC states that their purpose is to objectively analyze

and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. They intend their organizational

structure and purpose to stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC), which they contend is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and

predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution. NIPCC traces its

beginnings to an informal meeting held in Milan, Italy, in 2003, organized by S. Fred Singer and the

Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The purpose was to produce an independent evaluation

of the available scientific evidence on the subject of carbon dioxide-induced global warming in

anticipation of the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). NIPCC scientists concluded the

IPCC was biased with respect to making future projections of climate change, discerning a significant

human-induced influence on current and past climatic trends, and evaluating the impacts of potential

carbon dioxide-induced environmental changes on Earth’s biosphere .To highlight such perceived

deficiencies in the IPCC’s AR4, in 2008, SEPP partnered with the Heartland Institute to produce “Nature,

Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”, a summary of research for policymakers that has been widely

distributed and translated into six languages. In 2009, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and

Global Change joined the original two sponsors to help produce Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009

Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) as an alternative to the

reports of the IPCC.

 2011 wasn't an easy year for admires of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) when

they published their report on Renewable energy change climate . IPCC’s authors stated in the article

the importance of Renewable energy and its potential contributions to the globe .Therefore, NIPCC

published its report in the same year to condemn its methodology and credibility of its authors by

showing their evidence to be unrealistic and exaggerated

NIPCC in its report begin to reveal its partnership with The Heartland institute , Science and

Environmental policy project ,and the center for the study of Carbon dioxide and Global change on this

report to explain the hidden purpose of IPCC: serving the needs of government and policy.it also stated

that the IPCC association wasn’t a self-governing body of independent scientists. Then ,it shifted to the

flaws of the evidence of IPCC by stating the role Climategate to lead the proponents of the association

to veil their mistakes and diminish the emergence the opponents from peer-reviewed journals and

monopolize the data and not allow the collegaues to reproduce the implications Then ,the authors

mentioned the reluctance of professor Philip D jones (director of the Climatic Research Unit(CRU) at the

university of East Anglia and maintainer of IPCC essential climate temperature records) when he was

asked by a BBC environment analyst: the authors indicated that he said’’ The rates of global warming

from 1860–1880, 1910–1940 and 1975–1998, and 1975–2009 are similar and not statistically

significantly different from each other’’ and stated ‘’ The temperature trend for the period 1995 to 2009

is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level(it is a probability that the events he

mentioned would occur by approximately 95%).’’Even more , in the same conversation, jones was asked

‘’,When scientists say the debate on climate change is over, what exactly do they mean and what don‘t

they mean?’’: he responded saying that he don’t know if they agreed for the same reason and there is

much work to increase the certainty of the data Then, the Climategate unveiled that important results of

the IPCC-AR4 relied on non-peer reviewed sources; the authors mentioned that British media

acknowledged the discovery of these errors in their own style ,but didn’t mention an exhaustive
inspection of 18531 cites in AR4 that realized that one third of them weren’t peer reviewed

.Subsequently, they mentioned the global conference in Copenhagen and ill will of politicans to restrain

greenhouse gas emissions after the expiry of Kyoto protocol(it is a program that all nations should follow

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) in 2012.Furthermore, they mentioned the criticism of the

developing nations, such as India and China , to constrain their economies based on unresolved scientific

claims. They also said ‘’smaller developing countries are quite happy to receive further financial

subsidies from industrialized nations for the sake saving the climate. This drive for subsidies will

continue even if there is no successor to Kyoto. ‘’ Then, they began to give multiple examples of the

countries’ misgivings of human-causing global warming claims. For instance, he mentioned the cost and

effect of the renewable energy sources affecting the European nations support of climate awareness

and the refusal of USA ,China, and India to engage in an emissions control procedures. Then ,they

mentioned that the political and economical changes in US since 2009 are making the passing cap-and-

trade bill undone .They mentioned the courts challenged EPA (environmental protection agency) as their

dependence on IPCC science and strict allowance by the Republican majority of EPA to implement

greenhouse gas regulations . They stated another investigation made by the Amsterdam-Based

InterAcademy council (IAC) and composed of the leaders of national science academies around the

globe discovered flaws in the IPCC’s peer-review process.