@xianc78 IPCC is under the umbrella of the UN, and it is certainly subject to political influence, in particular in "executive summaries". But I can't but note that the image you shared is claiming the IPCC as source for the data as well.
As for Corbett, I never digged into everything he does, but he's far from neutral either.
https://www.corbettreport.com/global-warming-minute-why-is-the-ipcc-95-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade/
Here he claims 95% is a made-up number and that's either ignorant or dishonest: 95% confidence interval is a very common number used in statistics to determine if something you observe could be happening just by chance or is significantly different, or correlated to other factors.
In other words: IPCC recognises they can't possibly include "everything" in their model, but with what they have, there is 95% chance that a the temperature variations we measure are correlated to human activities rather than to other factors.
That is just maths. As for the model, I am not qualified to comment on what they include and what they don't
As for Corbett, I never digged into everything he does, but he's far from neutral either.
https://www.corbettreport.com/global-warming-minute-why-is-the-ipcc-95-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade/
Here he claims 95% is a made-up number and that's either ignorant or dishonest: 95% confidence interval is a very common number used in statistics to determine if something you observe could be happening just by chance or is significantly different, or correlated to other factors.
In other words: IPCC recognises they can't possibly include "everything" in their model, but with what they have, there is 95% chance that a the temperature variations we measure are correlated to human activities rather than to other factors.
That is just maths. As for the model, I am not qualified to comment on what they include and what they don't
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/01/figure-1.2-1024x626.png