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.
But I have looked at their evidence in the article. I then done a web search to learn more about Airparif, who leads them (and their resumes), who funds them etc. because I never heard of them (I am not French).
I have literally done my own research, and came away questioning their independence.
Nobody on this thread has given me any evidence that they are fully independent, best I got was a comment with a link to the Airparif website.
Instead I got attacked for even daring to ask the question. Go HN.
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.