So we can't believe IPCC then, since they have a biased opinion.
It sounds like if someone agrees with the held belief, then it's unbiased and credible, and if they disagree with the held belief, then they are biased and uncredible.
Research that results in data saying everything is fine gets no funding. Proclaiming apocalypse gets all the funding and results in a belief system.
Some research claims that global warming has been a net benefit at least until now, and possibly until 2080. Certainly it's been a net benefit since the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago, and since the little ice age 500 years ago.
Even mentioning this is heresy in the AGW religion.
It's absolutely pointless to propose a course of action regarding climate change without also considering the benefits of warming. Most people who are fearful of GW have never even Googled "benefits of global warming" because they aren't interested in a narrative that goes against the one they have decided to believe.
Acknowledging the benefits of global warming and also acknowledging the negatives are not mutually exclusive, but people treat them as such. Knowing about one without the other is to only have half the story. 50% is a failing grade.