3 ms·

“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 ago
How 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 ago
    Your 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        If 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]
        stouset 2y ago
        This isn’t critical thinking. Your complete inability to even vaguely hint or suggest at someone who might be better equipped to either perform this analysis or fund it makes that clear. “Someone without bias” is a cop out. Everyone has bias, and literally anyone performing or funding air quality measurements is going to have some sort of interest in their outcome. There is no sterile room of blind and deaf eunuchs performing these services and you know that. This comment was made in bad faith on your part, all I did was make that fact obvious.
        saltysalt 2y ago
        Sigh, I already addressed this demand that I MUST name an alternative in this thread. It's deflection pure and simple, I'm not going over that again...
        stouset 2y ago
        If you don’t think the current people doing this work or funding it are appropriate, you should be able to give at least a vague idea of an entity you think is better suited for either. The only qualification you managed to put out there is that they don’t have bias. This is literally unachievable and you know it, which is why you won’t even attempt to even hint at a better party.
- 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 ago
    I am under no such obligation.
    - stouset 2y ago
      Your refusal to give any example of any work that meets your threshold only serves to underscore my point.
      - saltysalt 2y ago
        Your point is deflection. Why don't you provide evidence that Airparif is independent instead, to address my original question? I'll wait.

saltysalt 2y ago

How 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 ago
  Your 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        If 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]
      - stouset 2y ago
        This isn’t critical thinking. Your complete inability to even vaguely hint or suggest at someone who might be better equipped to either perform this analysis or fund it makes that clear. “Someone without bias” is a cop out. Everyone has bias, and literally anyone performing or funding air quality measurements is going to have some sort of interest in their outcome. There is no sterile room of blind and deaf eunuchs performing these services and you know that. This comment was made in bad faith on your part, all I did was make that fact obvious.
        saltysalt 2y ago
        Sigh, I already addressed this demand that I MUST name an alternative in this thread. It's deflection pure and simple, I'm not going over that again...
        stouset 2y ago
        If you don’t think the current people doing this work or funding it are appropriate, you should be able to give at least a vague idea of an entity you think is better suited for either. The only qualification you managed to put out there is that they don’t have bias. This is literally unachievable and you know it, which is why you won’t even attempt to even hint at a better party.
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 ago
  I am under no such obligation.
  - stouset 2y ago
    Your refusal to give any example of any work that meets your threshold only serves to underscore my point.
    - saltysalt 2y ago
      Your point is deflection. Why don't you provide evidence that Airparif is independent instead, to address my original question? I'll wait.