Amicus Curiae Brief — Massachusetts v. EPA

SEP 3 0 2006

(22) | OFFICE OF THE WK |

No. 05-H20

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

=_ ——————— ---

JAMES R. MILKEY et al.,

Petitioners,

,

V.

UNITED STATES,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.

Respondents.

——-— ~- ——

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

——_ —_—--+--

MOTION OF AMICUS CURIAE JEROME B. CARR, Ph.D.

TO FILE A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE

RESPONDENTS

Mr. Albert Auburn, Esq. |

Suite 200

277 Linden ST

Wellesley MA 02482

781-235-0400

i

MOTION

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, I have tried to

secure written consent for the filing of the attached

Amicus Curiae from counsel for the Petitioners and

Respondents. Although counsel for the Respondents

granted such consent, counsel for the Petitioners withheld

it, even though Amicus had been told that the

Respondents have allowed almost all of the Briefs as

requested by the Petitioners. Accordingly, I, Jerome B.

Carr, Ph.D. Geologist Geophysicist, and Certified

Professional Hydrologist, author of the Brief Amicus

Curiae, move this court for permission to file the Brief

Amicus Curiae which is submitted herewith. Amicus

makes this motion on the following grounds.

Amicus Curiae, Jerome B. Carr, Ph.D., has 40 years

experience in review of meteorological data related to

applied sciences including meteorology, climatology,

hydrology, limnology (study of lakes), oceanography, and

telmatology (study of wetlands). I taught Historical

Geology at Purdue University, and Air and Land Pollution

for three years at Boston College. | worked for two and a

half years in the Atmospheric Physics Department at

Sperry Rand Research Center. I am a member of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science,

and the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As a member

of the AGU, I subscribe to their meteorological Journals

Climate and Atmospheric Dynamics, and Air Composition

and Chemistry. | am a member of nine other professional

scientific organizations, and subscribe to over 20

additional scientific journals. In addition I have built a

large technical library at the Carr Research Laboratory,

Inc. which was founded in 1974.

The only reason | am asking for permission to have

the court accept this Brief Amicus Curiae is to raise and

answer two very fundamental questions that should be

presented to this Court, knowing that answering these

questions will make the Court's work far simpler and so

its decision will be based on defensible world class

science.

The legal cause for asking for acceptance of this Brief

Amicus Curae is because the Massachusetts Attorney

General's office declined to allow permission for me to

submit this Brief. Note that my request to the Attorney's

General's Office was forwarded to the Sierra Club's lawyer

for a decision. I was told over the phone that they had all

the climate history they wanted and they did not want any

more. | was told that if | submitted a copy of my Brief for

them to review, they might consider allowing my Brief to

be accepted. However, based on the negative tone of the

statements made by the Sierra Club's lawyer, it was very

clear that if my Brief Amicus did not support the Plaintiff's

views, my submittal request would be denied, and this

motion would be required.

Note, this work is all pro bono publico and neither |

nor my firm is being paid for my time and effort. Nobody

is prejudiced by this motion or the attached Brief.

Wherefore, Jerome B. Carr, Ph.D., respectfully requests

that this Court grant Amicus Curiae leave to file the

attached Brief in support of linking high quality science to

high «juality law review by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Jerome B. Carr, Ph.D.

Geologist, Geophysicist &

Certified Professional Hydrologist

Carr Research Laboratory, Inc. Technical Offices

17 Waban Street Suite D-36

Wellesley, Mass. 02482 251 West Central ST

Phone: 508-651-7027 Natick MA 01760

FAX: 508-647-4737

E-mail carr@carr-research-lab.com

Dated: 29 August 2006

Respondent's Consent Letter follows this page.

17 Waban Street

Wellesley, Mass. 02482

MEMO - via Certified Mail FAX = 508-647-4737

PHONE = 508-651-7027

FROM J.B. Carr, Ph.D. carr@carr-research-lab.com

DATE = 14 August 2006

SUBJECT: Permission to file of Brief Amicus Curiae,

U.S. Supreme Court No. 05-1120

This is to inform you of my intention to file a Brief Amécus Curiae for U.S. Supreme Court Docket No.

05-1120. I will be submitting this document explaining the climatology and evidence from historical

geology on this matter. I heve been told that] shouid request your permission in order to submit this brief

Amicus. | hope that you will grant this permission to help explain the complexiies of the science in the

case in a brief and understandable fashion for the court I hope that all parties and the Court will find my

work of valve in this case.

Also, could you have one of your staff members send me 2 copy of your most recent document

the technical merits of the case. My e-mail address is casr@carr-research-lab.com, and my fax sumber is.

above.

Thank you.

If you have any questions of comments, please don't hesitate to cootact me.

Certified Professional Hydrologist

4

WILLIAMS MULLEN

Direct Dial: 202.327.5060

August 15, 2006

VIA HAND DELIVERY

The Honorable William K. Suter,

‘Clerk Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street, NB.

Washington, DC 20543

Re: Massachusetts vy EPA, No. 05-1120

Dear Ms. Suter:

Please be advised that, as contemplated by Rule 37.3(2), the Alliance of Automobile

Manufacturers, the Bngine Manufacturers Association, the National Automobile Dealers

Association, and the Truck Manufacturers Association consent to the filing in this case of all

amicus briefs that otherwise comply with the Court's rules.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Very truly yours,

Lieb dakrar 2

William A. Anderson, II

WAA/mmr

cc: The Honorable Paul D. Clement

James R. Milkey, Esquire

Thomas L. Casey, Esquire

Russell §. Frye, Esquire

Norman W. Fichthorn, Esquire

Julie C Becker, Esquire

Migne) Estrada, Esquire

Swart AC. Drake,

Jerome B. Carr, Ph.D.

A Professional Corporation

Vincinia + WasxincTow, D.C. + Loxvow

1666 K Sceet, N.W., Sui 1200 Washington, D.C.20006 Tek 202.855.9200 Fax 804.783.6507 or 202.293.5953!

willixmstaullen.com

—) —y

Sunte 400

= OC 20007-

The Virtual EHS Law Firm =e, p- 5108

Fax: 866.859.5198

www .FryeLaw .com

The Honorable William K. Suter, Clerk

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street, N_E.

Washington, DC 20543 22 August 2006

Re: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al v. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, et al , No. 05-1120

Dear Mr. Suter:

Please be advised that respondent CO, Litigation Group hereby grants its

consent, pursuant to Rule 37.3(a), to the filing in this case of all amicus curiae

briefs that otherwise comply with the Court's rules.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Russell §. Frye

ec: Hoa. Paul D. Clement

James R. Milkey

David Bookinder

Thomas L. Casey

William A. Andersoa, [

Norman W. Fichthom

Stephan C. Volker

Jerome B. Carr, Ph.D.

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 2005

No. 05-1120

James R. Milkey et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

UNITED STATES,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al.

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE JEROME B. CARR, Ph.D.

GEOLOGIST, GEOPHYSICIST &

CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL HYDROLOGIST

IN SUPPORT OF THE RESPONDENTS ON THE MERITS

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1- Does carbon dioxide (COz) qualify as a "pollutant"?

2- What does Historical Geology and Historical

Climatology teach us about glacial cycles and the start

and ending of glacial conditions relative to CO2

concentrations in the atmosphere?

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .

TABLE OF CONTENTS .

INTERESTS OF THE AMICUS CURIAE .

JURISDICTION

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT .

CONCLUSION

RESPONDENT'S CONSENT LETTER = After Motion

.@

» an

l

INTERESTS OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

Amicus Jerome B. Carr) Ph.D.; seeks to bring to the

Court's attention the views logically derived from scientific

interpretation of glacial and climate data published in the

scientific literature concerning the long term glacial

history of the Earth, its recorded climatic changes, and

their relationship, or lack thereof, to the carbon dioxide

(CO2) content of the atosphere.!

Amicus Curiae Jerome B. Carr, Ph.D., has spent

much of his 40 year career working on sciences

associated with the historical behavior of the atmosphere;

including but not limited to: (i) teaching Historical

Geology at Purdue University, (2) teaching Air and Land

Pollution at Boston College for three years, (3) two and a

half years of meteorological and climatic studies at Sperry

Rand Research Center, and (4) more than 30 years of on-

going and routine processing of climatic data for

hydrological studies. Since 1984 I have been a Certified

Professional Hydrologist by the American Institute of

Hydrology. Knowing that both science and the

interpretation of the law requires detailed knowledge and

precise application of that knowledge to benefit all our

citizens and residents, I am seeking to assist the Court by

briefly reviewing the history of the Earth and its

atmosphere relative to the CO2 concentrations as a

possible cause of recent or future atmospheric warming.

1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6 Amicus states that

he alone authored this Brief, without benefit of counsel, and

that no one other than the Amicus made a monetary

contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief.

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3(a) Amicus submitted a

consent letter to both parties for the filing of this Brief, and

counsel for Respondents signed a consent letter, while counsel

for the Plaintiffs verbally declined to do so, and never bothered

to reply in writing.

2

JURISDICTION

The definition of "pollutant" is "something that

pollutes." The definition of the verb "pollute" in its

clearest form is “to make unclean or unfit for use."

Based on these simple straight-forward definitions,

carbon dioxide (CO2) does not make the atmosphere

unclean because it is an odorless, tasteless, colorless,

invisible gas; which under normal circumstances is

stable, inert, and non-toxic.? It does not make the

atmosphere unfit for use because in the geological past,

from 25 to 45 million years ago, CO2 levels have been

measured at 1,000 to 1,500 parts per million (ppm), while

modern post-glacial concentrations are now measured are

in the range of 200 to less than 400 ppm.° Thus, since

plant life on land has existed for some 450 million years,

and since air breathing animals have existed for about

375 million years, there has been no evidence that carbon

dioxide has ever made the atmosphere "unfit for use”

under all the known and unknown variations of CO2

concentrations in atmospheric chemistry. Thus, CO: is

not a pollutant, and is not, and should not, be regulated

under any part of the Clean Air Act nor under any air

pollution section of 40 CFR.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

It is well known that there have been four major

glacial periods in the past 1.72 million years. Even within

2 Lindsey, J. S.; McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and

Technology, 5th Edition, Volume 2, page 585; McGraw-Hill Book

Co., New York, 1982.

3 Pagani, M., et al, Marked Decline in Atmospheric Carbon

Dioxide Concentrations During the Paleogene, Science Vol. 309,

No. 5734, pp. 600-603, 22 July 2005.

3

the last 10,000 years, which defined the most recent

glacial retreat, there have been significant climatic

fluctuations. The last period of glacial advances and

associated cooling lasted from about 1300 AD to 1850

AD.* There is no consistency within the geological and

climatic record that these glacial advances and retreats

were caused by changes in atmospheric chemistry, and in

specific with carbon dioxide (CO2)concentrations in the

atmosphere. Thus CO: is not a pollutant as defined in the

best dictionaries, nor will its regulation by any level of

government prevent either cooling or warming of the

atmosphere in the future.

ARGUMENT

Scientific evaluation of climatic conditions must seek

understanding of atmospheric behavior based on the long

term records. If carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in

the atmosphere fail to explain all the known warming and

cooling climatic events related to glaciation and deglaci-

ation, then CO2 emissions from any sources most

certainly should not be regulated by the EPA or any state

or federal regulations. A very brief summary of large-scale

glacial events since vigorous life existed on earth follows,

first with the coarse scale CO2 data of the earlier

geological periods, then with finer scale data from the

more recent geological history, and then during the Little

Ice Ages in human history.

Note, in this Brief, the term major glaciation means

glaciers were present over a significant portion of at least

one continent. Small-scale glaciations due to localized

mountain building are not counted as large-scale events

because they are not caused by cooling or warming

initiated by possible world-wide changes in atmospheric

chemistry.

4 Grove, Jean M.; Little Ice Ages, Page 505, Routledge;

Taylor Francis Group, New York, 2004.

4

Note also that the basic premise of climate

temperatures driven by atmospheric chemistry means

both the cooling events and the warming events which are

associated wit h large-scale glaciation should be reflected

in the atmospheric chemical data. If large scale

atmospheric temperatures are truly controlled by the heat

retaining gases in the atmosphere, then those gases

should affect both warming and cooling. Failure to

explain both cooling and warming means the concept of

chemical drive glaciation is invalid.

As background, this Brief reviews the history of the

earth going back to the start of the Cambrian Period when

complex life began to leave a very obvious and wide-

spread fossil record. Since many readers may have

forgotten their basic earth science, each geological period

will have its ages given for added clarity. Thus, the

Cambrian Period started 590 million years ago, and ended

505 million years ago. There was no large scale glaciation

for those 85 million years.

The Ordovician Period immediately followed the

Cambrian and it ended 438 million years ago. During the

late Ordovician, continental glaciation existed from 448

million years ago to 438 million years ago.5 Thus the end

of the glacial conditions ended the Ordovician. However,

the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were measured

at about 12.1 times higher than the present CO2 concen-

trations at the start of the glaciation, and had dropped to

an average of about 11 times higher than present when

the glaciers disappeared.© This means that, in spite of

5 Berry, W. B. N.; McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and

Technology, Sth Edition, Volume 9, page 610; McGraw-Hill Book

Co., New York, 1982.

6 Appenzeller, Tim; Searching for Clues to Ancient Carbon

Dioxide, Science, Vol. 259, No. 5097, pp. 908-909, 12 Feb.

1993. ;

S

very high CO2 concentrations, glacial conditions were

initiated and that the initial warming was not related to

rising low CO2 concentrations. The data record tells us

that CO2 concentrations were decreasing before, during,

and after the period of glaciation. Thus CO2 was not a

cause of the large scale glaciation, but an effect of

something else, most likely related to increasing total

amounts of plant life on earth.

During the next two geological periods (Silurian and

Devonian) covering 78 million years, the Devonian ended

360 million years ago. There was no large-scale glaciation

in either of these geological periods. However there was a

continued decrease in the CO2 concentrations followed by

a large jump which started 427 million years ago which

left a deep valley in the CO2 graph, and the nadir of the

valley was in the middle Silurian. The initial decrease in

CO» followed by the sudden increase, followed a continued

decrease did not trigger any large scale glaciation.

The next two geological periods were the Carbon-

iferous, which started 360 million years ago and ended

286 million years ago; and the Permian which ended 248

million years-ago--fhe Carboniferous in North America is

broken into the Mississippian and the Pennsylvanian

Periods. Since large-scale glaciation occurred for the

latter two thirds of the Carboniferous and the just over

half of the Permian, and since North American was not

glaciated for much of the Carboniferous, the term

Carboniferous will be used in this Brief.

During the later two-thirds of the Carboniferous

Period, a long period of large scale glaciation occurred

with an unknown number of glacial retreats and

advances. This glaciation continued into the early and

middle Permian Period with an unknown number of

glacial advances and retreats. The glaciation was initially

concentrated in the southern part of Africa, but later it

6

had expanded into Europe and North America. Preceding

the initiation of glaciation, CO2 concentrations were

declining just as they had in previous geological periods,

and actually reached concentrations less than at present

during the middle of the glaciation. The Carboniferous

Period is famous for its great coal deposits, and this coal

deposition means carbon continued to be stripped from

the atmosphere in huge amounts even after glaciation

started. The estimated CO2 concentration at the end of

the mid-Permian glacial activity duplicated the estimated

concentrations when the Carboniferous glacial activity

started. This modest increase in CO2 during the later half

of the 78 million years of glaciation was most likely due to

the decrease in coal deposition in the early Permian.

The next two geological periods are the Triassic and

Jurassic, the later ending 144 million years ago. In terms

of potential CO> initiation of cooling during these periods,

there was a sharp dip in CO2 concentrations at 147

million years ago, which was in the late Jurassic Period.

There is no record of this sharp drop in CO, concern-

trations being associated with any glacial activity. Thus

on a broad scale, CO2 decreases had no consistent

relationship to the initiation of glacial formation.

The periods from144 million years ago to 5.1 million

years ago were free of large scale glaciation, just as the

Triassic and Jurassic were. The geologic periods starting

at 144 million years ago were the Cretaceous, Paleocene,

Eocene, Oligocene and the Miocene. During this extended

time there was a major increase in COz, followed by

significant a decrease in COz, followed by a very large

increase in CQz, followed by a gradual decline in CO2.

None of the above decreases in CO» triggered a new glacial

age. In fact, CO2 measurements from sediment cores

from the past 45 million years showed that the final

decrease in CO2 concentrations had at six sharp rising

spikes in CO2 until the Miocene.? Then in the Miocene

from 23 million years ago to 5 million years ago, CO»

7

concentrations were quite stable, and within the range of

recent measurements. These more detailed and sustained

low CO2 measurements in the 18 million years of the

Miocene are a very strong argument against the idea that

low CO2 causes cooling or triggers initiation of glaciation.

In more recent geological history, finer scale CO2 and

temperature data are available from ice cores. One

illuminating study was done on the Vostok ice core from

Antarctica, which was analyzed from the time period 155

to 115 thousand years ago. This included about 19% of

the last northern hemisphere interglacial (mostly ice free)

period and included about 12,000 years of the start of the

latest continental glaciation known as the Wisconsin

Period, which started 127,000 years ago. This 40,000

years of data plotted in Figure 7 of the study’, revealed

the following information about the modern relationship

of CO2 to temperature.

From 155,000 years ago to 145,00 years ago, CO2

concentrations were slowly rising on average, and

temperatures were fairly stable on average with 14 to 15

peaks and valleys. Then CO2 concentrations increased

and temperatures increased by 12°C (22°F), but note that

temperatures peaked about 1,500 years after CO2 peaked.

Then for 6,000 years temperature declined 2.7°C (4.9°F)

while CO2 concentrations declined very slowly. At the end

of the 6,000 years the new ice age started. After the ice

age started, temperatures continued their rapid decline

while CO>2 barely decreased for 3,000 years and then CO2

actually increased for the next 9,000 years as the

terr-*rature decline continued. This 9,000 year increase

in -O2 concentrations, with temperatures continuing a

7- Raynaud, D., et al.; The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases,

Science, Vol. 259, No. 5097; pp 926-934, 12 February 1993.

8

vigorous decline by another 4.7°C.(8.5°F), is proof positive

that increasing CO did not cause atmospheric warming.

These series of events for the entire period from the

Cambrian to the start of the last glaciation tell us that

there is no simple or consistent relationship between CO2

and temperatures. Thus the presumed CO, relationship

with temperature is not substantiated by a careful review

of the scientific data. Rather, there are numerous feed-

back mechanisms at which affect start glacial cooling and

which trigger glacial melting. These include, but are not

limited to, the following:

- peat formation in wetlands becoming coal acting as a

carbon sink;

- carbon utilization in the oceans being dependent on

ocean water circulation patterns;

- snow and ice accumulation on land masses reflecting

a great deal of sunlight back to space and this has

more temperature impact than CO2 concentrations

ever could;

- slow changes in the orientation of the earth's axis is

known to affect seasonal warming patterns; and

- mountain building, plateau uplift, and closing the low

latitude connection between the Pacific and Atlantic

Oceans playing a significant role in dynamic effects

on climate.

In addition, one needs to know that the duration of

the three interglacial periods in the northern hemisphere.

The first lasted 420,000 years, the second lasted 220,000

years, and the third lasted for 7,000 years. Given this

track record, we should all be sure of one thing. That is,

the northern hemisphere glaciers will continue to melt for

anywhere from the next few years, to the next thousand

years, to tens of thousands of years; and sea level will rise

no matter what; unless the solar system passes into a

dust cloud, or a major meteor strikes the earth, or if a

new and major series of volcanic eruptions occur. Thus

pursuit of minor reductions in CO» will be a waste of

human effort and funds under all foreseeable

9

circumstances. Note also that methane is also a heat

retaining gas in the atmosphere, and quite honestly the

methane data better tracks the temperature data than

does the CO: data in the study referenced. Thus, CO? is

more than likely a poor and ineffective first choice for

action.

On the large time scales discussed above, it must

be stressed that the Earth has been free of continental

glaciation for more that 80% of the post-Cambrian time,

and for about 95% of the time since the Carboniferous /

mid-Permian glaciation ended. Thus the normal status of

the Earth's climate is warm enough to prevent large scale

glacial activity. This should make things 100% clear that

the cry to “stop the glacial melting" is pure nonsense,

because no law, regulation or policy can stop the Earth's

climate from returning to its normal glacier free status.

On a finer time scale, everyone should be aware of

the "Little Ice Ages" that took place over the past 10,000

years. The most recent of these lasted from 1300 AD to

about 1850 AD. Concerning those cooler periods? it is

concluded, on Page 569 of the detailed study of these

cooling events, that CO2 and methane, which is another

gas that may trap heat in the atmosphere, are not directly

causal of changes that triggered any of the four recent

glacial events or their melting. This confirms my

conclusions derived from review of the longer and mid-

range historical geology and climatology data. Given the

detailed analyses in that thorough study, I have chosen

not to comment on that data in this Brief. In addition, I

point out that on page 933 in Raynaud’, the group of

author scientists concluded that CO2 variations observed

are basically caused by ocean processes, by changes in

the vegetation patterns, and by geological events that

impact the surface of the Earth. This conclusion clearly

and unequivocally confirms that the causes of climate

change are far too complex for anyone to believe that

reductions in CO2 would protect any location from the

warming associated with the slow rise in sea levels which

10

are inevitable given an eventual return to a normal glacial

free Earth.

Now let us speculate on the future if a fifth ice age is

going to follow the present warming trend. Under that

scenario, if CO2 would help warm the earth in any

significant fashion, then the on-going increase in CO2

might actually benefit the human race. If the glaciers

return to the same extent as before, Massachusetts,

Rhode Island, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire will be

buried under more than 1,000 feet of ice. In addition, in

New York State; Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo

will be 100% destroyed. The same applies to Cleveland,

Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and maybe St. Paul,

Minnesota too. If a new glacial period is on its way,

maybe the CO2 could be beneficial if it can actually drive

the climate, rather that just respond to it.

As a final note, it must be stressed that recent global

warming may not be as severe as compiled from recent

temperature statistics. Here it must be noted that many

weather observation stations are in large cities or near

airports. The temperature data from these stations are

biased upwards by the heat islands caused by urban-

ization. I'll give one example from my home town. The

local newspaper ran a story after a large snow storm with

many pictures of a 1944 blizzard. The article mentioned

that the streets were not plowed, and that people drove

over packed snow until spring melting. In a similar snow

storm today, the streets would be plowed free of snow ina

day or so, and the exposed black-top would heat the

above-lying air. Add to this more streets, more housing,

and more air conditioners pumping heat into the air in

the summer; it becomes quite easy to see what causes

urban heat islands that can bias historical temperature

data. Even at airports, the change from grassed runways

to paved runways, then to multiple paved runways, to

new near-by commercial or industrial buildings; all add

up to more heat generating surfaces that do increase local

temperature readings. If the temperature data is not

11

corrected for these local micro-climate changes, or if the

long term data are not restricted to areas away from

recent urban land use changes, then recent warming

statistics from ground level stations may not reflect real

world continental temperature trends from: ground level

stations.

CONCLUSION

Carbon dioxide does not meet any possible definition

of having the ability to pollute. It is a clear, odorless,

tasteless, colorless, invisible gas; which under normal

circumstances is stable, inert, and non-toxic. Thus it is

not a pollutant which makes the atmosphere unclean or

unfit for use. A review of the history of CO2 in the

atmosphere shows that in distant past, the concen-

trations in air were 16 to over 25 times more than at

present. Thus life will go on in spite of modest recent and

on-going increases in COd.

A brief review of geological history shows that 95% of

the time since the end of Carboniferous /mid-Permian

glaciation, the earth has been free of continental

glaciation. Thus the normal status of the Earth is one

free of continental glaciation. No one can stop the Earth

and its climate from returning to this normal status.

In addition, in review of the CO2 data for the

Ordovician and Carboniferous periods, the CO2

concentrations in the atmosphere did not consistently

demonstrate that decreasing CO2 concentrations lead to

continental glaciation, nor were rising concentrations a

cause of the end of the glacial periods.

Looking at the more refined data from sediment and

ice cores, there is no meaningful pattern of decreasing

CO2 concentrations starting recent ice ages, and no

increasing CO2 concentrations ending recent ice ages. On

an even finer scale, the data from the past 10,000 years of

12

glacial retreat had many interruptions with glacial

advances on a world wide scale. Rather than CO2 being

driving force for all these changes, both large and small, it

turns out that there are many complex environmental

interactions which alter CO2 concentrations when climate

changes occur due to causes other than rising CO2

concentrations.

Respectfully submitted,

pens f. Com

Jerome B. Carr, Ph.D.

Geologist, Geophysicist &

Certified Professional Hydrologist

Carr Research Laboratory, Inc. Technical Offices

17 Waban Street Suite D-36

Wellesley, Mass. 02482 251 West Central ST

phone 508-651-7027 Natick MA 01760

FAX 508-647-4737

e-mail carn@carr-research-lab.com

Dated: 29 August 2006