Here a collection of recent and current things from a variety of people and news sources: 


"Despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, Oregon's Senate passed a bill this afternoon aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from cars, SUVs and pickup trucks in metropolitan areas even as the state's population grows."The agencies would also establish a "tool kit," planning guidelines and vehicle greenhouse gas reduction targets for five metropolitan areas: Bend, Corvallis, Eugene/Springfield, Medford and Salem/Keizer. The Portland area is already proceeding with legislatively mandated planning around vehicle emissions.
The tool kit would likely focus on mass transit, more compact development and measures to reduce traffic congestion, such as better timing of traffic signals, all aimed at meeting Oregon's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Seventeen Democrats supported the bill. The Senate's 12 Republicans all voted against it, joined by Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Mount Hood, who said the bill doesn't "mention anything about economic vitality."
"We can certainly reduce greenhouse gases if nobody is working," Metsger said.


ICSC: IPCC focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral



Over 25 years of trying Metro's land use and transportation plans have not worked to produce the intended increase in walkers, bikers and transit users.
So why would their climate plan work by calling for more of the same?  

Big problems with Metro's CSCSP 
 "Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project" 
 
1. Cities and Counties can say NO despite Metro insisting there's no choice because of the "mandate from the 2009 Legislature, which told Metro to come up with a plan to curb emissions from cars and light trucks."
The legislature always passes stupid legislation. They need to be told so they can repeal it. 
The 24/7/365 school zone is a prime example. It was later repealed because it was stupid and jurisdictions refused to enforce it.
The CO2 reduction legislation was passed 5 years ago. Much of the government & science establishment has since acknowledged a long absence of warming while emissions soared and that emission reduction policies have NO ability to reduce global atmospheric CO2.  Meanwhile our own PNW climate has been cooling for decades while our marine and eco systems are thriving. 

2.Metro is using a futile notion of CO2 emissions reductions to justify more of their same failed planning strategies.  

3.The failure of planning strategies to reach the objectives of increased numbers of walkers, bikers and transit riders.
The Metro Auditor made it clear, and Metro management admitted they cannot show how their planning strategies are accomplishing their goals. The Beaverton Round,  Cascade Station, Gateway and Lents follies are all embarrassments. 
Not models to repeat for the sake of the climate. Metro's overall approach has caused our region to "Significantly under-perform similar regions around the country" according to Metro's own data raised by the Coalition for a Prosperous Region who's members include: 
The Portland Business Alliance, The Westside Economic Alliance & The Clackamas County Business Alliance.  

4.Metro makes excuses for their inability to measure planning strategy outcomes. 
Metro in response to the Auditor claims they haven't the tools to determine if their planning strategies work.  Of course that is preposterous as the Metro Auditor demonstrated with her own 3 case studies. Metro has the means to evaluate all sorts of outcomes including who is walking or riding what and how often. 

5.Seeking to mandate more of these policies under the new mission of CO2 reduction. Hypocrisy abounds as Metro claims it cannot measure planning outcomes yet now says it can monitor emissions? 
    Even if they could, what is it for? To satisfy legislation for the sake of satisfying legislation? 

6. Misappropriating resources away from other priorities to fund the unfunded mandates & unfunded boondoggles.  
 Probably the most offensive aspect of the CSCSP is the foolishness in diverting funding. Every dime this will devour is needed elsewhere. 
7.Imposing new taxes and fees for these illegitimate purposes.
 Because the legislature is unlikely to approve any NEW fees or taxes attempts will be made to re-allocate existing revenue streams.
8.Avoidance of voter approval for these plans and allocations.     
 Many local Commissioners and city councilors know voters will join them and not support any new taxation or any misappropriating of current resources. 
9.Continued delays in the Sunrise Corridor, Abernathy Bridge/I-205, I-5/99 connector, and countless other road, bridge, intersection and bus transit service improvements. 
 Legitimate needs will have public support. 




This was a lead story on koin.com last night, but no mention whatsoever in the Oregonian?

Video

Climate Smart’ plan pits Clackamas vs Metro

Public provided input to Clackamas County Commission on Thursday

By Tim Becker and KOIN 6 News Staff

Published: October 30, 2014, 5:37 pm  Updated: October 30, 2014, 6:22 pm

CLACKAMAS, Ore. (KOIN 6) Clackamas County officials are questioning Metro’s Climate Smart plan, a program that will eventually be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Commissioners called the plan “Portland-centric” and said it will hurt more than help Clackamas County.
As it’s drafted now calling for feweer cars and more mass transit   Metro’s Cliimate Smart program won’t work in Clackamas County, commissioners said.
The Climate Smart plan calls for, among other things, improving mass transit, bikeways and walkways.
County chair John Ludlow told KOIN 6 News relieving congestion with another lane along I-205 to help reduce congestion and greenhouse gases is one priority of theirs that coulld fall through the cracks in Metro’s Climate Smart plan.
Fewer idling cars, they argue, would mean fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
But that’s about $250 million to implement.
“One year of Climate Smart,” Ludlow said, “estimated at being $250 to $260 million, would fix I-205.”
A letter the commission sent to Metro also shares concerns about losing flexibility and control to invest in the county’s highway capacity.
“There is no carrot offered to  Clackamas County to do this,” Commissioner Tootie Smith said.
Some of the commissioners reject Climate Smart entirely, while others realize dealing with it is inevitable and hope to make it as painless as possible.
“We’re prepared to take the hit as necessary for our complaint about the process, about the plan and, certainly, about the cost which will come home,” Ludlow said.
The public provided input Thursday to the commissioners, and most did not like the plan.
One person told the commission, “Their Climate Smart plan has nothing to do with climate and it has nothing to do with being smart.”
Another was more succinct.
“I’m asking you to do everything in your power as commissioners to reject this.”
Metro will take up all recommendations for the Climate Smart plan in December.
d the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation will meet in joint session again on Nov. 7 to discuss the final Climate Smart Communities strategies. 
The Metro Council must endorse a set of strategies by the end of 2014; that, in turn, would be reviewed by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission in early 2015." 


agenda
packet

Joint JPACT and MPAC meeting

Friday, November 7, 2014 - 8:00am to 11:00am
World Forestry Center, Cheatham Hall
The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation makes recommendations to the Metro Council on transportation needs in the region. Established by the Metro Charter in 1992, the Metro Policy Advisory Committee advises the Metro Council on the amendment or adoption of the Regional Framework Plan.
At this joint meeting, JPACT and MPAC will discuss public comments, potential refinements and recommended actions to the draftClimate Smart Strategy, released in September 2014.
Contact: Alexandra Eldridge
Phone: 503-797-1916
Address:    World Forestry Center, Cheatham Hall
4033 SW Canyon Rd, Portland
- See more at: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/event/joint-jpact-and-mpac-meeting-0/2014-11-07-08-00#sthash.3HN2ecyg.dpuf


“Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance, only 6% of it is devoted to helping people adapt to climate change in the present. The rest is wasted trying to stop improbable future climatic events. That is immoral.”




-----Original Message-----
From: clackastani <clackastani@comcast.net>
Sent: Wed, Oct 29, 2014 7:36 pm
Subject: Is Metro nuts?: ALERT Clackamas County Commissioners- No to Metro climate plans?

If the US eliminates 100% of its CO2 emissions China will replace it within in 2 years due to their high growth rate? 

The re-engineering of society to reduce CO2 emissions is not even necessary. 
In the geological history of the planet warming temperatures were never preceded by rising CO2 levels. 
If the US eliminates 100% of its CO2 emissions China will replace it within in 2 years due to their high growth rate? 
The Man made global warming theory is looking more and more like the Y2K scare of the late 1990s. 
*earths temperatures are not constant. 
There were 23 periods of cooling and warming in the past 500 years with the average cycle being 27 years long. 
There were two cooling and warming periods in the past 100 years alone.      
1880-1915 was a period of cooling    
1915-1945 was a period of warming   
1945-1977 was a period of cooling    
1977-1998 was a period of warming    
1998-the present, it has been cooling, 
all related to changes in solar activity and the Pacific El Nino and La Nina cycles link

EPA, "A vertically and horizontally averaged water vapor concentration is about 5,000 ppm." 

"Only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity."

 “Total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect”.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Actual Atmospheric Water Vapor Levels Invalidate Global Warming 'Tipping Point' Hypothesis

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/02/climate-scientists-confirm-that-actual-atmospheric-water-vapor-levels-invalidate-global-warming-tipp.html


Greenhouse Gases
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm

New paper finds only ~3.75% of atmospheric CO2 is man-made from burning of fossil fuels
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html

The floundering lie & fatal flaw in AGW.....
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor2.php                                                                                                                                  “Warming due to carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion evaporates even more water, increasing the thickness of the blanket, which leads to more heating, which leads to more water vapor The looop is called the water vapor feedback, and it has the potential to be a serious problem.”
NASA goes on to say, [with surprising weakness]
“Sherwood explains. “If you have enough of this positive feedback, then of course the whole climate system would be unstable.” Today’s climate, he quickly adds, is not unstable. “But as you pile on more and more of this sort of thing, you get closer and closer to an unstable situation. So if the climate is unstable, small differences in how strong these feedbacks are, can become relatively important, more important than you might think.”
That's an admission that the warming and instability is yet to occur. They are presuming that at a piling up can someday become more important.
The EPA seems to concur:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
“Concentrations of ozone and water vapor are spatially and temporally variable due to their short atmospheric lifetimes. A vertically and horizontally averaged water vapor concentration is about 5,000 ppm. Globally averaged water vapor concentration is difficult to measure precisely because it varies from one place to another and from one season to the next. This precludes a precise determination of changes in water vapor since pre-industrial time. However, a warmer atmosphere will likely contain more water vapor than at present.”
“A warming atmosphere will?”
NASA and the EPA are hypothesizing about a future scenario which they cannot even measure today as beginning to occur. 
Which begs the question. How has so much been so confidently attributed to that which is yet to occur?
Man-made CO2 is only 3.225% of atmospheric CO2 96.775% is natural.
Total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.
So there could not have been, or at least scientists cannot know that there has been any initial warming do solely to the increased fossil fuel use.
AGW is not possible because CO2 emissions did not cause warming or the evaporation of more water.
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm



-----Original Message-----
From: clackastani <clackastani@comcast.net>
Sent: Tue, Oct 28, 2014 7:19 am
Subject: ALERT Clackamas County Commissioners- No to Metro climate plans?


The Board of Clackamas County Commissioners may say NO to Metro. 
Public input may make it happen.  
Show up - Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 10:00 AM
Board of County Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda    Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 10:00 AM
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS (The following items will be individually presented by County staff or other appropriate individuals. Citizens wishing to comment on a discussion item must fill out a blue card provided on the table outside of the hearing room prior to the beginning of the meeting.)

County Administration
2. Discussion Regarding Metro’s Climate Smart Communities Strategy (Dan Chandler, County Administration)
Help encourage Clackamas county to just say no to Metro & No to the Legislature.
Give commissioners the public support they need to act. 
 
Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 10:00 AM

Metro has prepared a climate plan for the region.  

They say they are only following orders:
 
"The 2009 Oregon Legislature required the Portland metropolitan region to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions from cars and small trucks by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2035." 

Metro lobbied with others to get this unfunded mandate from the legislature to require what they wanted required.  Now they your money.  
What Metro is now recommending is no surprise. It is everything they have been doing but more of it with new taxes to pay for it. Light rail, high density-compact development, bike paths and all of the rest.  
Millions upon millions without any beneficial impact on CO2 emissions or the climate.
And they know it.  They are trying to the head of the line for current and new funding.    
 
"Secure adequate funding,  raising revenue,  financing tools,  new dedicated funding mechanism, 
active transportation and transit, carbon pricing models to generate new funding for clean energy, transit  and active transportation,  Increase state gas tax,  diverse coalition that includes elected officials and community and business leaders at local, regional and state levels working together  to Advocate for local revenue raising options,  new  dedicated funding mechanism(s) for transit and active transportation, 
Seek transit and active transportation funding from Oregon Legislature."

Metro is working behind the scenes to make their climate policies mandatory and will 
be seeking 100s of million form the Legislature to help pay the cost. 

Governor John Kitzhaber, has been pushing for a Carbon Tax.
The Oregonian calls his carbon tax idea "The Cover Oregon of Tax Reform"


Until Thursday, Oct. 30, 2014 &nbssp;PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Climate Smart Communities Survey
The Oregon Legislature has required the Portland metropolitan region to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions from cars and small trucks by 2035.  Take a short survey online at www.makeagreatplace.org on transportation and land use policies and actions that can shape our communities.  Your input today will determine 
the future of the region for generations to come.  Email comments to climatescenarios@oregonmetro.gov





"Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on climate research especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the driver of weather or climate."


Climate Research needs Re-direction

Letter to the Editor

forbes
27th October 2014
Written by Viv Forbes of carbon-sense.com
Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on climate research especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the driver of weather or climate.
Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites, 73 climate computer models, and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focused on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally unnoticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere carbon dioxide.
The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.
Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes. Wind direction and strength are related to sun-generated convection in the atmosphere, the transfer of solar heat from the equator to the poles, and the Coriolis effect of the rotation of the earth. Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes.
Oceans also conceal most of the volcanic ring-of-fire and are home to huge numbers of volcanoes, many of which are active. The mighty weather-changing ENSO/El Nino starts with a pool of warm water in the eastern Pacific. Carbon dioxide plays no part in creating such hot-spots, but periodic eruption of undersea volcanoes may do it. We know less about the floor of the oceans and their volcanoes than we do about the surface of Mars.
What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?
The community is getting little benefit from atmospheric research and climate modelling and that money should be redirected to more productive areas.
Half of “climate research” money should be spent on improving the ability of public infrastructure to survive natural disasters.
The remaining funds should be spent on real climate research – mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes; and investigating how volcanism, solar variations and cycles of the sun, moon, planets and solar system impact long-term weather forecasts and future climate. This work should preferably be done by contracting private operators; and the climate models in public hands should be handed over to practicing meteorologists to see if they are useful for short-term weather forecasting.
Viv Forbes,
Rosewood   Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com
For those who would like to read more:
73 UN Climate models are wrong:
Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?
Oceans important in past Climate Changes:
Super volcanos forming beneath Pacific Ocean:
Massive Hot Spot in Iceland:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/20/fema-edict-to-u-s-states-provide-a-climate-plan-or-lose-funding/


FEMA edict to U.S. states: ‘Provide a Climate Plan or Lose Funding’

Was4186770h/t TriplePundit FEMA, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency, has issued draft guidance which demands that states include an assessment of climate risk in their 5 year disaster plan, or risk losing federal funding.
According to the FEMA draft guidance;
“Key concepts under consideration include strengthening specific requirements for:

Kitzhaber AWOL
The Coos Bay LNG terminal is a $7.5 BILLION private investment
that should be getting super-citing fast track help. That will be the largest private investment in Oregon history

Project Benefits.
The Jordan Cove Project is a proposed new, state-of the art liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal that will establish the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay as the premier energy center on the U.S. Pacific coast. The infrastructure built by and for the Jordan Cove Energy Project includes:
  • Jordan Cove LNG Terminal
  • South Dunes Power Plant
  • Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline
The aggregate investment for these facilities will be greater than $7.5 billion, provide long-term stable employment for more than 150 direct hire personnel at wages significantly above the area average.
The Jordan Cove Project’s ideal location in the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay in Coos County, Oregon provides:
    • A catalyst for regional economic development through job creation, increased port utilization and increased access to competitive reliable sources of energy

    • Superior site characteristics through its utilization of a large, 170-acre parcel for the LNG terminal and a 190 acre parcel for the South Dunes Power Plant in an existing marine industrial port development area, remote from residential development

  • A location in the Port of Coos Bay that allows for short inland transit distance via an existing, Federally maintained channel
The associated South Dunes Power Project provides a local source of power generation with the capability of reinforcing the local electric grid.
Jordan Cove will provide enhanced fire and safety infrastructure and services:
  • Southwest Oregon Regional Safety Center (SORSC) fire and safety complex:

      Full-time professionally staffed fire stattion;
      Crews dedicated to the Jordaan Cove facility;
      Coos County Sherriff’s substation;
      Offices forr the Port and US Coast Guard; and
     • Training rooms and outdoor training area.

  • Jordan Cove will partner with SOCC to create a unique LNG Fire Training Center

      Jordan Cove is partnering with Southwest Oregon Community College (SOCC) to add LNG fire training to the SOCC curriculum offering a first on the West Coast.
      Expaanded use of LNG as a maritime and surface transportation fuel will increase the need for special LNG training SOCC and Coos Bay will be poised to be the West Coast center for this specialized training.