You can also hold political bias and fake a "strong" analysis, especially if your audience already agrees with or desires the outcome in your conclusion.
What I will say is that the author's bias has given him/her some major blinders and that s/he's become incapable of seeing ways in which s/he is wrong. My suggestion is that the author engage in a forecasting technique developed at Royal Dutch Shell known as scenario planning. One of the key features of scenario planning is that whenever you finish arriving at a conclusion, you then ask yourself the question, "the future that I predicted turned out to be wildly incorrect and X happened instead of Y. Which of my assumptions or expectations turned out to be incorrect that could lead to X happening instead of Y?" These days, this is actually a hallmark feature I look for in anyone forecasting or making predictions of any sort. If someone making a prediction has not given sufficient thought to being their own devil's advocate, it's a telltale sign of poor analysis. If you don't spend enough time doing this, you quickly get sucked into believing your own bullshit. Given the tone of this blog, do you think this author has spent enough time time poking holes in their own arguments? Have you seen many or any lines like "I believe X will happen leading to A, but it's possible that Y could happen leading to B instead and this is how it would change my predictions...". If someone's predictions don't present any possibilities for branching, they aren't being critical in their analysis, if you can even call it that.
The list of cognitive biases the author falls victim too are numerous. Over several posts I've definitely seen lots of examples of anchoring for example.
> It's not the source's responsibility to be 100% unbiased.
100% no bias isn't possible. However, are you suggesting that that they shouldn't even try to mitigate their biases? Not every reader is as informed as authors who have taken time to research a topic. Society commonly defers to experts. If it becomes common and accepted for experts to allow or even embrace their biases unabashedly, then there is no reason to defer to experts any more because we will never know if we're being subject to an endless stream of lies of omission.
> If you can't elaborate on your judgement, perhaps it's you who have blinders on?
That's totally possible. However I know for my own sake that I have certainly considered many of the assumptions and predictions the OP presented. That doesn't help you any, but it doesn't hurt you either because I haven't provided any of my own analysis (with my own biases) in the other direction either. I merely provided you with some new tools to better evaluate the predictions made by the OP. If you choose not to use those tools, that's your prerogative.
