This is Kelly's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Kelly's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Anne, the traction motor in the current Prius (Gen III, 2010-2013) puts out a maximum of 207 Nm, and it's the only motor-generator that propels the vehicle. You can so a lot with 200 Nm.
Harvey, here are some selections from Toyota's current offerings in Japan:
Goracle, Sulleny: Are you compensated in any way for your posts? Do you post under multiple names?
Goracle, Sulleny: Are you compensated in any way for your posts? Do you post under multiple names?
Sulleny: One would not need to have an opinion on anthropogenic climate change to see that you really cherry-picked this one. All one would have to do is click on your link, then click through several times to get to the original BBC interview: Jones makes it quite clear that he feels that much of the warming since the 1950s can be attributed to manmade sources, and he lays out his logic for all to see. When you crow about inaccuracy and claim that science is riddled with conspiracy, yet fail to include even the most basic assertions found in the original interview, you make it clear that you are part of the problem and not the solution. Did you even read the source material? Are you compensated in any way for your posts? Do you post under multiple names?
Toggle Commented Feb 20, 2010 on de Boer Resigns from UNFCCC at Green Car Congress
HarveyD: CTS and Denso accelerator pedals are indeed both part of the recall. However, you mentioned brake pedal issues. I had assumed that it was a typo, and that you were referring to accelerator pedals. To clarify, none of the present issues are related to brake pedals assemblies.
HarveyD: Denso pedals are being recalled, as well. It's not just CTS.
Goracle, Sulleny: Are you compensated in any way for your posts? Do you post under multiple names?
Sulleny: Are you compensated in any way for your posts? Do you post under multiple names?
Scott: Actually, comparing temperatures from a month-long cold spell to temperatures from a 100-year period, in the manner that you are doing it, is the very definition of cherry-picking. Paul: Goracle has been asked repeatedly if he or she is compensated for posting, and has also been asked repeatedly if he or she posts under multiple names. To date, Goracle has not responded to either question.
Ziv, "Will, I can't speak for Raymond, but I think you are missing the point." Actually, Will is spot on. Raymond had missed the point of the conclusions in the paper that is the subject of the article. Will was gently pointing that out. "The CRU..." Let me stop you right there. Neither the article nor the paper discuss the CRU, and the IPCC is mentioned only peripherally. Curiously, you haven't even mentioned the paper cited in the article upon which you are supposedly commenting. And keep in mind that if the IPCC is at fault for using the convention that the airborne fraction is relatively steady, then that would indicate that anthropogenic warming will come harder and faster than current models project. Somehow, I don't think you intended to arrive at that result. It really does pay to read the source material before posting an opinion on the source material.
Sulleny, since you won't say whether or not you have read the research paper that you have criticized, I guess it's time for the questions that Goracle and Reel$$ have so far declined to answer: Are you compensated in any way for the posts that you write? Do you post under multiple names?
Sulleny: So you haven't actually read the paper that you are calling into question?
Sulleny: Can you specify the findings in Dessler's paper that you believe to be inaccurate or incorrect? Also, can you specify what the correct findings would have been, and explain how you came to your conclusions?
Sulleny, the article wasn't about your so-called "Climategate". But if you want to read about that, be my guest: And if you want to make an FOI request, start here:
Goracle, If the Hadley data is cooked, then why does it agree with data from other sources? Are you compensated for your posts? Do you post under multiple names? Why do so many of your posts simply state your views, yet fail to address the articles to which you are supposedly responding?
Goracle, Are you paid or otherwise compensated for your online comments? Do you post under multiple names?
From Treehugger: "Then check your numbers. A car like the Prius needs 10Kg of Neodymium." No, it doesn't. Disassemble the motors, remove the magnets, and weigh them. Not everything that is posted on the Internet is true.
Mannstein: "Greenland was once green..." Science is split on that. "...and if it returns to that state the Greenlanders welcome it." You mean, like this?,8599,1829365,00.html Or this?
Goracle, I have two questions for you: 1. Are you paid for posting on websites? 2. Do you post under multiple names?
Goracle: I asked the correct person, thanks.
Reel$$: Thanks for the link. I clicked through to it, and it's a story about a former climate scientist pleading guilty to business fraud, but not scientific fraud. You didn't mention that. Any reason for the omission? I also noticed that, as per usual, your comment did not address the article that you are ostensibly commenting on. That's a red flag. While I have no issue with you stating your opinions, you state them dozens of times per day. This raises the question: are you paid for your comments? I'd appreciate direct answers to my questions.
Sorry ejj, you lost me on the Iraq war/climate change connection. But thanks for playing!
' "Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future." ' Indeed. Just for kicks, do you disagree with any of the assertions in the report that is the subject of the article? Do you have any data to back up your disagreements?
Um, those folks aren't listed as authors of this report. Perhaps you are thinking of another document?