Sorry guy, wiki is not a valid source. Anything to do with climate from them is suspect due to Connelly.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx
CLIP:
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
I have posted this a couple of times now. Do you not believe it? Do you simply not care? Do you believe a man doing this to a source of data doesn't alter the credibility of that source?
http://landshape.org/enm/sea-level-acceleration/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3427/No-evidence-for-accelerated-sealevel-rise-says-Royal-Netherlands-Meteorological-Institute
I have checked the facts. That is why I said that ocean temperatures have been falling.
The only accurate method we have of tracking ocean temperatures is the Argos bouy system. They dive 700m, record the temperature, come back to the surface, and radio the data. There are 3000 of them scattered across the world's oceans. When they first went online, they showed a definite cooling trend, they were recalibrated to show a warming trend which they did for a short time and have gone back to reading a further cooling trend.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/april_09_co2_report.pdf
You really should learn to differentiate between actual observed data and computer projections. One is real the other is not.
I have shown petitions with thousands of scientist's signatures stating that they don't buy into the hypothesis. I have given you articles written by ipcc insiders and lead authors stating that the consensus has been contrived. What evidence do you have that there is a consensus?
