That's another of those truly stupid ideas marketed by truly dishonest conmen to the truly incapable of critical thinking US conservative public.
The fact is that whether global warming is human induced or not is totally irrelevant and in fact the very BEST case scenario would be if global warming were solely human induced.
When a comment like "Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true." is introduced it is time to tune that source out. It is why "public opinion" should be excluded totally from science.
But why do I say that?
There are two questions to be answered first; "Is global warming happening.", and second, "Will there be consequences from global warming we must address?"
So far the preponderance of evidence shows the former is in fact happening and almost all projections show that there will be major consequences to address.
Since the answer to those two questions appears to be "Yes!", what possible actions can we take?
One is to try to reduce the factors that might be causing global warming and so let's look a what could be done in that endeavor.
Can we reduce the natural processes involved, volcanoes, solar cycles, position of the earth, the Milankovitch Cycles or other such natural processes?
So that only leaves those processes and practices that are human induced.
All we have to work with are the human induced processes and effect.
But wait, there is more.
The smaller the percentage of human induced global warming in relation to the combined natural and human contribution, the MORE we must reduce that human contribution if we are to have any effect.
Those interests marketing the snake-oil "Human induced global warming hasn’t been proven to be true.", are simply trying to palm the pea, misdirect attention, con the rubes, fleece the sheep, pull the wool over all eyes.
It is a totally irrelevant tactic to avoid addressing what must be done.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!