# Amicus Curiae Brief — Massachusetts v. EPA > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0245%3A27 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2007 - **Citation:** 549 U.S. 497 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0245%3A27. Public record. Not legal advice.