I think you might have missed the point of this criticism. It is not science that is the problem, it is the way it is practiced, which in this case tends to be too conservative and operates by consensus. Bill McGuire explains the problem:

> "They’re conservative, because insufficient attention has been given to the importance of tipping points, feedback loops and outlier predictions; consensus, because more extreme scenarios have tended to be marginalized."

A good summary of the overall problem is found here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/07/19/you-shoul...

you are arguing against one type of bias by introducing another. This is not science this is ideology.

My argument represents the exact opposite of bias. If the IPCC estimates are too conservative and result in poor predictions, and if their consensus mechanism excludes worst case scenarios, then more inclusive estimates and including more scenarios leads to more impartiality—the opposite of bias.

how do you know that your choice of sources isnt the one thats biased? You dont. You are engaging in ideology not science. The very fact that you dont see this and just assume you have the right perspective illustrates my point. You are an ideologue.