If the ipcc seems biased in only looking at the risk of human-induced climate change. That is because that is exactly what they were created to do. So, we have many people quoting the part that the ipcc looks at as though that were the whole of climate science instead of the small part within the ipcc's mandate. A problem can’t be understood if only one aspect of it is studied. It’s like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. OK so I recently read one too many complaints from astrophysicists about people and the media only focusing on CO2 as a driver of the climate. Which finally peaked my curiosity. Misnomers and a sloppy use of the language: "Global warming" when most of the warming happens within the arctic and antarctic circles which total less than 5% of the surface of the earth. "Intergovernmental panel on climate change" "IPCC" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established ... for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. how about the IPSTSIRURICC ?