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)
Omnologos - Comments 