6 ms·
Airparif is an NGO run by environmentalists and funded by the EU, not sure how independent they are?
by saltysalt 2y ago
Airparif is an NGO run by environmentalists and funded by the EU, not sure how independent they are?
- stouset 2y agoWho, exactly, would you like to monitor air quality and who, exactly, do you think should be funding it?
- saltysalt 2y agoSomeone without bias, obviously.
- toomanyrichies 2y ago“Someone without bias” is indeed obvious, and therefore unhelpful. Can you be more specific? Who, precisely, doesn’t have a dog in the climate change fight?
- saltysalt 2y agoHow specific am I supposed to be, do you want names, resumes, potential investors? Not my problem to solve. However, I no longer accept published reports at face value, unless I check who the authors are, and who funds them. They even have a Cruchbase page, it's easy to check for yourself.
- toomanyrichies 2y ago> How specific am I supposed to be, do you want names, resumes, potential investors? Names would be good, for a start. If you can’t name a single person, group, or entity whose opinion would satisfy you, it’s likely that no amount of evidence would change your mind. Which means that you’re not discussing this topic in good faith. All human endeavors have human bias, in one direction or the other. If you’re waiting for a bias-free source of information, you’ll be waiting a long time.
- saltysalt 2y agoYour argument that I should accept one source blindly because I cannot name a better alternative in the moment is pretty weak.
- toomanyrichies 2y ago> Your argument that I should accept one source blindly Others may have made that argument, but show me where I’ve done that. So far, all I’ve done is ask you who you’d accept as a valid authority, or what evidence you’d accept. And you can’t even do that. A claim has been made that air quality in Paris has improved, and evidence has been provided to back that claim up, in the form of AQI readings provided by (in your words) “an NGO run by environmentalists and funded by the EU”. In turn, you have made a 2nd claim that this evidence is flawed, but so far you’ve provided no evidence to back your claim up. Claims which are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- saltysalt 2y agoI simply questioned the independence of the source of the evidence, is such critical thinking not allowed? Your attempt to somehow make me responsible to provide an alternative source of evidence is classic deflection. That is not my responsibility. Do your own research etc.
- toomanyrichies 2y agoIf even “an NGO run by environmentalists and funded by the EU” is beyond the pale for you, then there is no such thing as a source which will meet the standard of “independence” that you’re applying. Which again, means you’re not discussing in good faith. Good day.
- saltysalt 2y ago[flagged]
- 2y ago
- stouset 2y ago> However, I no longer accept published reports at face value, unless I check who the authors are, and who funds them. No, you use this as a cop out to deny results. In this case you have done this check and you have decided you do not want to believe the outcome so you wave around a vague charge of bias in a lame attempt to discredit it. Please show me one single scientific report or conclusion you’ve accepted that passed this same “bias test”. Neither the authors nor their funding source may have a particular interest in the outcome. Any such example will do.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- saltysalt 2y agoI am under no such obligation.
- Beretta_Vexee 2y agoCan you demonstrate that Airparif is biased?
- saltysalt 2y ago[flagged]
- stouset 2y ago[flagged]
- saltysalt 2y ago[flagged]
- Agingcoder 2y agoWhere did you find this ? This is just plain wrong. Airparif is a collection of people involving regular people, the local cities, major polluters etc. https://www.airparif.fr/airparif/missions-dairparif https://www.airparif.fr/airparif/missions-dairparif ( unfortunately in French) It’s funded 24% by the state, 24% by cities, 27% by large companies including the polluting ones,20% by selling what they produce/know how etc.
- saltysalt 2y ago"Airparif has raised an undisclosed amount of funding from 1 Grant (prize money) round on Jun 01, 2014 from European Union." Source: https://tracxn.com/d/companies/airparif/__7FZ-JDeTGVeYNdb_2-lMNAYBwSozV4GRd6oMsanNpFw/funding-and-investors https://tracxn.com/d/companies/airparif/__7FZ-JDeTGVeYNdb_2-...
- toomanyrichies 2y agoSince this thread has already established that bias is inherent in all human endeavors, why don't you try addressing the quality of the evidence itself, instead of its source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
- saltysalt 2y agoBecause the source is important, to understand the motives. Don't you agree?
- toomanyrichies 2y agoMore important than the quality of the evidence itself? People you disagree with can still be right from time to time, even if they are "biased" as you suggest.
- saltysalt 2y agoYes they can be right, I agree. Also I never stated I disagreed with them. I simply questioned their independence. Let me give you another hypothetical example: Would you trust a report on the impacts of fracking by a pro-fracking NGO, with private funding? Even if their data looked ok on face value? The messenger matters.
- stouset 2y agoRight, right, you never said you disagreed. You’re “just asking questions”. The messenger matters less than the data, the collection methods, and the approach to analysis. Bias can be a reason to more carefully examine a conclusion and the methods, particularly if a source has had quality issues in the past. But simply throwing out accusations of bias in the absence of literally any other reason to doubt a pretty straightforward conclusion (removing sources of NO2 makes NO2 go down, shocking!) is not a meaningful contribution to a discussion. Every researcher is biased. Every source of funding is biased. Hell, you haven’t even shown that they’re significantly biased, the only thing you’ve pointed out is that apparently some of their grant funding came from the EU, as if that’s some sort of smoking gun. Did their bias lead them to an invalid conclusion? Do you believe it did? Do you have a reason to believe it did? If so, state it. If not, what was the point in making your comment other than to sow doubt?