Harry P.

I can see why you walked out. Marking up magazines? Never heard of that. That's just plain greed.

Now those are a pair of seriously cool models!

I'll take KP any day. On TV or otherwise... The way Chris Martin jerks around and shakes is so annoying.

I'm no fan of music videos... most of them are just contrived nonsense. I like music, and that performance by EC is pretty cool (couldn't care less about the video, though). I'm also not a fan of Lynyrd Skynyrd, but the one song they do that I really like is Call Me the Breeze. Their version of it is the best one I've heard, way better than J.J. Cale's original. They really get the groove down on that one. I especially like the guitar intro...

You can't post videos with "NSFW" lyrics here.

The car would have to be moving pretty fast. You're saying the driver jumps out right before impact? And all the while with nobody else seeing you? Pretty farfetched, but I guess it's possible.

Isn't the halftime show the time when you're supposed to go hit the john and then make a sandwich and grab a beer before the second half starts???

I think they went for $89.95 or something like that. Pretty good money for a bike back in those days.

Yeah, how do you "stage" wrapping a car around a tree?

If you're going to build a wind farm to supply power to Nantucket and Mahthah's Vineyahd, it doesn't make much sense to build it in Detroit.

Details excerpted from online sources... Cape Wind: The Legal Battle between Green Energy and NIMBY Introduction The Cape Wind Energy project is a proposed offshore wind farm to be located in Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts. Cape Wind Associates are the owners of the proposed 130 wind turbines that will generate an average of 170 megawatts of electricity, supplying three quarters of the energy needs of the residents of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket Island. Since the launch in 2001, the project has gone through multiple federal, state, and regional permits, environmental impact assessments, and public hearings. The project is shrouded in controversy and serves as an example of the conflict between renewable energy projects and public sentiment of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY). In 2001, Cape Wind requested a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Following NEPA requirements, the USACE issued a Notice of Intent, held several public hearings, and created the first environmental impact statement (“Executive,” 2008). In the meantime, the 2005 Energy Bill placed the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in charge of offshore energy regulation. In 2008, the MMS completed an even more comprehensive version of the draft EIS, in which it considered the impact on wildlife such as bats, birds, shellfish, fish, and protected species. The study also considered impacts on wave action, air temperature, and the effects of scouring. Finally, the study considered the economic and social impacts on commercial fishing, recreation, tourism, and aviation. For each impact, the study identified mitigating actions to reduce the effects caused by the project. For example, wind turbines would be spaced at least 2,066 feet apart to enable shipping vessels, fishing boats, and birds to navigate between them and avoid collisions. In addition, a NOAA Fisheries observer would be present during construction and will have the authority to halt work if a protected species enters the work safety zone. As a third example, the wind turbines would be painted marine gray to reduce visibility from shore and by recreational boaters. Cape Wind applied for the necessary approval and worked to meet the requirements of both state and local governments. After multiple attempts by the Cape Cod Commission to halt the project, the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Sitting Board created a “super permit” which negated the need for further local or state permits, studies, or public hearings. Opponent Viewpoints The primary organization that opposes Cape Wind is the non-profit Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. The Alliance is not against wind power in general, but Nantucket Sound as the location for the project. “The Alliance supports wind power as an alternative energy source. However, we oppose the proposed Cape Wind plant in Nantucket Sound due to potential adverse economic, environmental, and public safety impacts." The Alliance points out that Nantucket Sound, Martha’s Vineyard, and Cape Cod are renowned for scenic beauty and wildlife. The area attracts six million tourists per year, which accounts for more than half of the region’s economy. The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound launched numerous legal challenges to halt the project. In 2010, the Alliance filed a lawsuit indicating that federal approvals violated NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In 2010, Nantucket Sound was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places when two Native American Indian tribes indicated that the presence of wind turbines would impede their spiritual connection with the Sound. Individuals opposed to Cape Wind can join the opposition by completing a form on the Alliance web site. Several prominent private landowners, such as Senator Ted Kennedy and Walter Cronkite, who would have views of the wind farm, joined the opposition effort. In February 2011, Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown asked the U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for further public review sessions and environmental impact studies. Proponent Viewpoints Those in favor of the Cape Wind project cite environmental benefits, health benefits, and fewer oil tankers passing through Nantucket Sound. The Cape Wind project would supply energy to 420,000 homes and meet the energy needs of 75% of the residents of Cape Cod, Martha’s Vineyard, and Nantucket. Compared to coal, Cape Wind’s renewable energy would reduce emissions per year by 1.5 million tons of CO2, 2,699 tons of SO2, and 9,813 tons of NOx. This translates into improved human health and benefits the ecology due to fewer air and water pollutants. Because 45% of the region’s current energy is supplied by the oil and natural gas Canal Power Plant, Cape Wind has the added benefit of reducing oil shipped through Nantucket Sound. Since 1976, there have been two major tanker spills in Nantucket Sound spilling over 7.7 million gallons of oil, killing wildlife and shutting down shell fish (U.S. Coast Guard, 2007). Cape Wind supporters believe that the opposition is a case of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY). Of the two viable options that the MMS identified, the opposition suggests moving Cape Wind to Tuckernuck Shoal (Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, n.d.). However, the MMS states that the environmental impacts of the Tuckernuck Shoal location “would be greater with respect to avifauna, subtidal resources, non-ESA mammals, fish and fisheries,” but that “generally fewer viewers would see the project.” Cape Wind proponents conclude that the main reason for opposition of the project is that a small number of elite and wealthy homeowners are trying to move the project out of their line of sight, despite the benefits the project has for the public. A 2007 survey of 600 people found that 61% of Cape Cod residents and 86% of Massachusetts residents support the project (Opinion Research Corporation, 2007). NEPA Perspective After the decade-long effort, the Cape Wind project has complied with all NEPA requirements, as well as all federal, state, and regional requirements. The MMS concluded that the project owners properly defined the purpose and need for the project and filed all necessary permits. As required by NEPA, the MMS notified the public, conducted multiple public input sessions, identified and explored alternative sources of energy and locations, and conducted a full and complete EIS, including actions to mitigate potential impacts. The remaining action is for the USACE and the EPA to grant final permits, after which the project will finalize financing and begin construction. Conclusion Cape Wind is highly complex because it must adhere to federal, state, and regional environmental regulations. However, the political dynamics of the project location created even greater complexity and debate. The proposed location is preferred for generating wind power and minimizes environmental impact. Yet, it is a location of natural beauty and historic value that supports a tourism-driven economy. The opposition attempted to use environmental regulations to halt the project or move it elsewhere. This is an example of NIMBY supported by elite homeowners in sight of the wind turbines. All communities can make a case for why a project should be located elsewhere. If this is allowed, renewable energy projects like Cape Wind will struggle and many will fail. “If the NIMBYs prevail, wind power is doomed. And that would be a tragedy."

No, not in that case. It was more the Martha's Vineyard types...

I read a story once where the elites on one of those posh east coast resort islands, who of course are all big proponents of alternative energy, freaked when there was talk about putting up a wind farm within sight of their oceanside views. Horrors! NIMBY...

I guess we also need to ban airplanes. Don't birds get sucked into the turbines all the time? And cars. I mean, haven't enough bugs been killed by windshields already?

You can gently and slightly bend the fender unit to get a better fit with the body. But be careful... diecast metal is very brittle and will crack if bent too far. As far as correct engine color, or getting the details correct, period... you need to do a google image search. There are hundreds of photos online that you can reference. http://www.google.com/search?q=1931+packard+dual+cowl+phaeton&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qkH2U_KBH4ynyATw4oCoBg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1529&bih=893 http://www.google.com/search?q=1931+packard+engine&safe=off&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=HUL2U_rQKIb2yQS2soGoBg&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1529&bih=893

Some interesting info from the British Antarctic Survey website (italics aded by me): "By measuring the ratios of different water isotopes in polar ice cores, we can determine how temperature in Antarctica and Greenland has changed in the past. The oldest ice core we have was drilled by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) from Dome C on the Antarctic plateau. It extends back 800,000 years and shows a succession of long, cold ‘glacial’ periods, interspersed roughly every 100,000 years by warm ‘interglacial’ periods (of which the last 11,000 years is the most recent). From the air in our oldest Antarctic ice core, we can see that CO2 changed in a remarkably similar way to Antarctic climate, with low concentrations during cold times, and high concentrations during warm periods. This is entirely consistent with the idea that temperature and CO2 are intimately linked, and each acts to amplify changes in the other (what we call a positive feedback). It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, but the tiny changes in climate this should cause are amplified mainly by the resulting increase in CO2 and by the retreat of sea ice and ice sheets (which leads to less sunlight being reflected away). Ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings. The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime." What that says to me is not only that the Earth's climate has been constantly changing, but that there have been very abrupt swings in climate in the past, along with dramatic changes in CO2 ... long before the world became industrialized. In other words, abrupt swings in the Earth's climate have occured without man possibly having had any influence on them. So why then are some so absolutely convinced that any current climate change is due to man's activity?

Instead of our society holding this endless "climate change-no climate change" debate, we'd be far better off if we all (believers, non-believers and undecideds) took sensible, achievable steps to limit emissions and pollution as much as we can, without turning our entire economic/industrial system upside-down just to placate a relative handful of climate change zealots. That means serious attempts to bring solar and wind power into the mainstream, so that prices come down to a point where those sources would be economically feasible to use on a much larger scale... not just as trendy "boutique" energy sources for a select few. There's no reason why every home in America couldn't have both solar panels and a small wind turbine or two on the roof. Maybe that wouldn't supply all of the energy needed, but it would obviously supply some. If solar panels and small wind turbine generators were priced at a consumer-friendly level and available at your local home center, they'd sell by the millions. Who wouldn't want to reduce their energy costs? But for some reason those products still don't exist on a consumer-friendly, DIY level.

The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend back 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. 800,000 years is a blink of an eye in the 6-7 billion year existence of Earth. Not even that. A nanosecond. Again, far too small a sample to be seen as proof of anything as far as the Earth's overall history of climate change. Yes, we can say that the Earth has been warming for the last century. But we have to look at the overall changes that have taken place over billions of years... what has happened in the last one hundred years is just a tiny blip. What has happened in a relative nanosecond of Earth's history isn't proof of anything one way or another. To give another analogy, what happens in the stock market today is meaningless as far as the market's overall activity since its inception, or how it will act in the coming 100 years. We simply cannot say with certainty that human activity is affecting the Earth's normal climatological swings, because we don't have a large enough sample (time-wise) of data.

The ultimate climate change irony is that "Mr. Climate Change" himself sold his TV network to an outfit that is funded by petro-dollars... Hypocrite. Rich hypocrite.

That's just plain old good common sense, regardless of where your beliefs fall on the climate change debate. But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that human activity is increasing the Earth's overall average temperature, and that we can halt and/or reverse that trend by implementing tighter regulations. The problem is, we can pass all sorts of rules and regulations here, but we can't do anything about the world's two largest polluters–India and China–and all the other developing countries that have no laws in place regarding pollution or emissions. It's as if you personally go on a diet because there are too many obese people in the world. Your diet (and good intentions) isn't going to make a bit of difference in the overall scheme of things, because your diet isn't going to affect anyone else. And you alone dieting won't change the fact that too many people are obese. If anyone thinks humans can ever put some sort of international climate treaty in place that everyone will adhere to, they're hopelessly naive.

The reason that I believe you can't prove that human activity is affecting the climate is very simple and obvious: We have at most a few hundred years worth of accurate, reliable weather data.The Earth has existed, and its climate has been changing, for billions of years. You can't possibly take data from an infinitesimally small sample (the few hundred years of climatological records we have) and then say that the data from that tiny, tiny sample proves that climate change is being altered by human activity.

Hobby Lobby has a 40% off coupon every week.

The question isn't whether or not climate change is happening. It is. The earth's climate has been constantly changing for billions of years... long before man came along. Dinosaurs used to live on a planet that had a tropical climate, then the ice age came (major climate change)! In the middle ages there was a significant cooling down. etc., etc. So it's not whether the Earth's climate is changing... it is. The question is... is this change just a continuation of the natural variations the Earth has always undergone, or is man somehow affecting the natural process? IMO (and I'm no scientist, just using common sense)... man has been on this Earth for far too short a period of time (given the age of the planet) to make it possible to prove that any short-term changes in climate are due to human activity. You can't take the relative blink of an eye that man has existed on this planet since day one and take anything that happens in that blink of an eye and make a sweeping generalizations about human influence on the climate. It's just too small and insignificant of a sample.

From KLAS TV, Las Vegas, June 2014: Lake Mead is reaching historic lows not seen since the lake was filled in the 1930s. The lower levels are having an impact on the amount of electricity Hoover Dam produces. The Hoover Dam produces electricity to serve about 1.3 million people a year. Most of the power is purchased by California with about one-quarter of it going to Nevada. Tour groups can be found at the dam most days. On this particular tour, the guide explains the lower water level. "The water maintenance level should actually be about halfway up that white line," the guide tells the group. "We've come across the dam here quite a few times, and we've never seen in this low," said Kenneth Absher who is visiting from California. The lake is about to be at its lowest level ever. "The level of Lake Mead is supposed to drop to an elevation of 1081.75 over the next few days, which is the lowest elevation it's ever been since the lake was filled when Hoover Dam was built," said Rose Davis, Bureau of Reclamation. Lake Mead is not only the primary water source for Las Vegas, but it's also how Hoover Dam produces power. Simply put, the lower the lake, the less electricity. "Our concern is the ability to generate power. We've seen a 23 percent reduction in our capacity to generate power since the lake continues to drop," Davis said. The hydroelectric facility is taking steps so its current capacity of 1592 megawatts won't go down anymore. "We've been proactive over the last five years in putting in new equipment that operates more efficiently at low lake levels," Davis said. Three wide head turbines have been installed, and two more are on the way in the next couple years. It's hoped they will arrive before Lake Mead gets to catastrophic levels that could bring the dam to screeching halt. "What we call the dead pool, which is the elevation of Lake Mead where Hoover Dam cannot generate any power, is about 950 feet," Davis said. For now, states like California and Nevada still get their electricity from the 77-year-old manmade wonder, as long as the Southwest doesn't get dangerously dry. About 96 percent of the water in Lake Mead is from melted snow that fell in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming. Lake Mead needs several years of strong snow packs to get out of the drought.

Got it. But that's her... Brooke Burke–at least when she was on the INXS show.