Humans who are not biased probably do not exist. Or at least do not care or know about politics in the slightest. I think there is nothing wrong with that. That

Humans who are not biased probably do not exist. Or at least do not care or know about politics in the slightest. I think there is nothing wrong with that. That doesn't invalidate his work. I know too much about human biases to even try to claim that his do not influence his interpretations and work at all – I just don't think that's possible – but that is general and in all likelihood inevitable problem. I think it's pretty clear, however, that it's in his best interest to make accurate predictions, not partisan predictions. I do not think it's really helpful to start out with that question. It puts too much focus on what's actually important. Yeah, bias can be hard to detect, but a little bias does not make models useless and when there is a lot of bias you should actually be able to point at what's wrong with the model instead of having to resort to some diffuse claims of bias. Writing this made me think of Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Noelle-Neumann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Noelle-Neumann). I disagree with many of her views and I think it would be fair to call her biased after reading her most famous work (The Spiral of Silence), but I do respect her work. There is a difference.