User contributions for Institute of Klimatology

This account is currently blocked. (Show block details) The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

01:56, 27 November 2009 Moreschi talk contribs blocked Institute of Klimatology talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (really an obvious insult to my intelligence....)

Search for contributionsshowhide

⧼contribs-top⧽

Username, IP address or CIDR range:

Namespace:

Invert selection

Associated namespace

Tag filter:

Invert selection

Only show edits that are latest revisions

Only show edits that are page creations

Hide minor edits

⧼contribs-date⧽

From date:

To date:

Show only edits pending review

Hide probably good edits

01:4901:49, 27 November 2009 diff hist +11 N User:Institute of Klimatology ←Created page with '{{User en}}'
01:4801:48, 27 November 2009 diff hist +249 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →The term "Climategate": Numerous reliable sources have used the term "Climategate" so we are OK.
01:4701:47, 27 November 2009 diff hist −230 m Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →New York Times blog ref: sign
01:4601:46, 27 November 2009 diff hist +222 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →adding the word falsification: The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition is as reliable as the blog Realclimate.
01:4401:44, 27 November 2009 diff hist +198 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →Attempt to defend criminality: Recall the issue of FOI was brought up in the emails.

23:1323:13, 26 November 2009 diff hist +186 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →New York Times blog ref
23:1123:11, 26 November 2009 diff hist +263 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →Theft (2): It is not my opinion. It is the legal opinion reported by reliable sources.
23:0723:07, 26 November 2009 diff hist +323 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →Concerns over use of blog Realclimate: Reaclimate is a blog--it is not fact checked nor peer reviewed.
23:0523:05, 26 November 2009 diff hist +295 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →Theft (2): The whistleblower common law act does seem to be in play here.
23:0323:03, 26 November 2009 diff hist +135 m Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →adding the word falsification: sign
23:0223:02, 26 November 2009 diff hist +125 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →adding the word falsification: The term "falsification" does seem to be warrated here, based on the reliable sources provided.
23:0123:01, 26 November 2009 diff hist +250 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →New York Times blog ref: contributors to the Realclimate blog are involved in the actual scandal
19:3219:32, 26 November 2009 diff hist +249 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →New York Times blog ref: Realclimate not reliable
19:0519:05, 26 November 2009 diff hist +195 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →New York Times blog ref: We should also remove references to the Realclimate blog
18:4418:44, 26 November 2009 diff hist +229 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →Theft: If it was an insider, it could be considered whistleblowing, which is covered by some laws
16:5116:51, 26 November 2009 diff hist +246 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →The term "Climategate": We pretty much need to include the term "Climategate"....this is the direction we are headed.
16:5116:51, 26 November 2009 diff hist +263 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy Realclimate is a blog and is not a reliable source. Why is it quoted in the text?
16:4616:46, 26 November 2009 diff hist +125 Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy →likely insiders?: Numerous reliable sources and experts indicate an inside job

27 November 2009

26 November 2009