Of course it is much easier (and cheaper) for researchers to go about investigating what’s around them, and therefore a certain pro-Europe and pro-North America bias could be well expected, as well-funded research may obviously correlate with high national wealth.
On the other hand, the ratio Europe/North America is around 36 to 1. That is, for every change noted in North America, there are 36 changes noted in Europe.
I cannot see how could European research be 36 times better funded than the North American one.
And I would discount pro- and anti-AGW bias, as the IPCC has looked at all available research (and rightly so!), not just the studies funded for climate purposes.
So there is an evident, gigantic European bias in the data, and it may as well be that “global warming” is mostly a European phenomenon linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
Of that we are not sure: the one thing we surely should agree on, is that before stating that AGW evidence is solid, a good amount of funding must go into research in neglected areas, that is the whole world apart from Europe.
If anybody believes I am cherry-picking on this, please visit the IPCC link, read the document (chapter 1 should suffice) and counter-argue. I am all ears on this.
I am all ears, that is, apart than with people calling me a “denier” with the obvious intent of equalling AGW skepticism to the denial of the Holocaust. It’s a heavy-handed, futile attempt at silencing dissent.
Please stop (yes this is about you Mr/Ms A3k)