> 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.

> 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.

Right, 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?

Of course I'd be skeptical. Skepticism is healthy, especially in your example. In that case, the most productive conversation to have would be examining (and either refuting or accepting) their evidence. So far you've refused to do either one here. Instead, you repeatedly engage in the genetic fallacy I linked to above, or insisting that we should consult some impossibly impartial oracle of objective truth instead.

That's your right of course. No one can force you to avoid using logical fallacies. But the longer you do that, the more it starts to look like you're avoiding or even conceding the real debate. It's up to you whether that matters to you.