Originally posted by mrstabbyI believe they are almost all changes in 'biological systems' and it's the report that states they are 'Consistent with Global Warming'
These are changes in environment, not temperature. This may be indicative that the climate changes are affecting europe more, european studies are more likely to span the timeline, more studies went on in europe, more fragile ecosystems tended to be studied in europe, and so many other factors. Why not write an email and ask them where the data went? The ...[text shortened]... ok at the colours on the map, and you'll see clearly that europe is not the only region in red.
Originally posted by MerkYes, consistent with global warming, and not due to local factors. It shows that the places that are changing are doing so because of the current climate change
I believe they are almost all changes in 'biological systems' and it's the report that states they are 'Consistent with Global Warming'
Originally posted by MetBierOp5) The Europeans' measurements were done in a dishonest way, throwing away data that is not convenient.
If 96% of the significant changes where measered in Europe. Then that can mean one or more of the following things.
1) The effects are higher in Europe
2) Europeans can measure
3) Europe did more measurements
4) The Europeans measurement are done in a honest way, without throwing away data that is not convenient.
If you want to know if you are "th ...[text shortened]... it away!
You cannot base or state anything on data you do not have.
😞
edits: Spelling
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf you weren't such a blinkered fool, you'd realize that Europe has actually the lowest percentage of biological changes consistent with warming. Imagine if the "Europeans" were not "dishonest"!
5) The Europeans' measurements were done in a dishonest way, throwing away data that is not convenient.
But, of course, you're afraid of the EU bogeyman. Pathetic.