Happer, Lindzen: EPA Climate Regulations Based on a ‘Hoax’
Two prominent climate scientists have taken on new rules from the EPA on cutting CO2 emissions in electricity generation, arguing in testimony that the regulations “will be disastrous for the country, for no scientifically justifiable reason.”
Citing extensive data (pdf) to support their case, William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.
“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule.”
“All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table John Christy of UAH produced in 2016 (below) showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data.
“That was already an embarrassment in the ’90s, when I was director of energy research in the U.S. Department of Energy,” he said. “I was funding a lot of this work, and I knew very well then that the models were overpredicting the warming by a huge amount.”
He and his colleague argued that the EPA has grossly overstated the harm from CO2 emissions while ignoring the benefits of CO2 to life on Earth.
Many who have fought against EPA climate regulations have done so by arguing what’s called the “major questions doctrine,” that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to invent regulations that have such an enormous effect on Americans without clear direction from Congress.
However, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen have taken a different tack, arguing that because the EPA regulations are “arbitrary and capricious,” they fail a test laid out in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
“Time and again, courts have applied ‘State Farm’s’ principles to invalidate agency rules where the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, or cherry-picked data to support a pre-ordained conclusion,” they wrote.
According to Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen’s testimony, “600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradict the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.”
They present CO2 and temperature data indicating much higher temperatures and levels of CO2 than are observed today, with little correlation between the two. They also argue that current CO2 levels are at a low point historically.
“The often highly emphasized 140 [parts per million] increase in CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial Age is trivial compared to CO2 changes over the geological history of life on Earth,” they wrote.
The scientists’ testimony to the EPA also stated that the agency’s emissions rules fail to consider that CO2 and ‘fossil fuels’ are essential to life on earth, particularly human life.
“Increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere create more food for people worldwide, including more food for people in drought-stricken areas,” they wrote. “Increases in carbon dioxide over the past two centuries since the Industrial Revolution, from about 280 parts per million to about 420 ppm, caused an approximate 20 percent increase in the food available to people worldwide, as well as increased greening of the planet.”
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to more plant growth and higher farming yields, they said. Synthetic fertilizers, which are derivatives of natural gas, are responsible for nearly half the world’s food production today.
“Net zero” goals would reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40 gigatons per year, reducing the food supply proportionally.
In addition to disregarding the benefits of CO2, they stated, the EPA’s emission rules and the global warming narrative that has been used to justify them are based on flawed data.
In addition to teaching physics at Princeton, Mr. Happer’s decades of work in physics have focused on atmospheric radiation and atmospheric turbulence, and his inventions have been used by astronomers and in national defense.
“Radiation in the atmosphere is my specialty,” Mr. Happer said, “and I know more about it than, I would guess, any climate scientists.”
His expertise “involves much of the same physics that’s involved in climate, and none of it is very alarming,” he said.
The global warming narrative argues that as people burn ‘fossil fuels’, they emit higher concentrations of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere, which creates a “greenhouse effect,” trapping the sun’s radiation and warming the earth.
But one aspect of CO2 emissions that global warming models fail to take into account, according to Mr. Happer, is a phenomenon called “saturation,” or the diminishing effect of CO2 in the atmosphere at higher concentrations.
“At the current concentrations of CO2, around 400 parts per million, it decreases the radiation to space by about 30 percent, compared to what you would have if you took it all away,” he said. “So that’s enough to cause quite a bit of warming of the earth, and thank God for that; it helps make the earth habitable, along with the effects of water vapor and clouds.”
“But if you could double the amount of CO2 from 400 to 800, and that will take a long time, the amount that you decrease radiation to space is only 1 percent. Very few people realize how hard it is for additional carbon dioxide to make a difference to the radiation to space. That’s what’s called saturation, and it’s been well-known for a century.”
Image: Inconvenient Facts
In addition to scientific arguments about why global warming is overblown, the scientists cite data showing large discrepancies between global warming models and actual observations. In some cases, Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen say, data has been disingenuously manipulated to fit the ‘climate change’ narrative.
“The most striking example of that is the temperature record,” Mr. Happer said. “If you look at the temperature records that were published 20 years ago, they showed very clearly that in the United States by far the warmest years we had were during the mid-1930s.”
“If you look at the data today, that is no longer true. People in charge of that data, or what the public sees, have gradually reduced the temperatures of the ’30s, then increased the temperature of more recent measurements.”
The scientists provided a graph created by the EPA titled “Record Warm Daily Temperatures Are Occurring More Often,” which they claim is an example of misleading data used by the agency to support the theory of global warming.
“This chart does not actually show ‘daily temperatures,’” they stated. “Instead it shows a ‘ratio’ of daily record highs to lows—a number that appears designed to create the impression that temperatures are steadily rising.”
By contrast, the scientists presented a table that indicates significantly higher temperatures in the 1930s than today.
Image: Tony Heller at Realclimatescience.com
The Scientific ‘Consensus’ for ‘Climate Change’
Proponents of the global warming narrative often state that it’s “settled science” and that nearly all scientists agree that global warming is real and the result of human activity.
An official NASA statement reads:
“The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists—97 percent—agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.”
A report by Cornell University states that:
“more than 99.9 percent of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.”
But Mr. Happer argued that consensus isn’t science, citing a lecture on the scientific method by renowned physicist Richard Feynman, who said, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”
“Science has never been made by consensus,” Mr. Happer said. “The way you decide something is true in science is you compare it with experiment or observations.”
“It doesn’t matter if there’s a consensus. It doesn’t matter if a Nobel Prize winner says it’s true; if it disagrees with observations, it’s wrong. And that’s the situation with climate models. They are clearly wrong because they don’t agree with observations.”
The National Library of Medicine cites a speech by physician and author Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology in 2003 in which he said:
“Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results.”
Mr. Happer said, “The initial predictions of climate disasters had New York flooded by now, no ice left at the North Pole, England would be like Siberia by now. Nothing that they predicted actually came true. You have to do something to keep the money coming in, so they changed ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change.’”
The Price of Dissent
Regarding the consensus in published literature cited by Cornell University, some experts counter that academic publications routinely reject any submissions that question the global warming narrative.
“I’m lucky because I didn’t really start pushing back on this until I was close to retirement,” Mr. Happer said.
He had already established himself at that point as a tenured professor at Princeton, a member of the Academy of Sciences, and director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.
“If I’d been much younger, they could have made sure I never got tenure, that my papers would never get published,” Mr. Happer said. “They can keep me from publishing papers now, but it doesn’t matter because I already have status. But it would matter a lot if I were younger and I had a career that I was trying to make.”
In an interview with John Stossel, climate scientist Judith Curry said she paid the price for contradicting the narrative and called the global warming consensus “a manufactured consensus.”
Ms. Curry, former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, once published a study that claimed that hurricanes were increasing in intensity.
“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists, and I was treated like a rock star,” she said. “I was flown all over the place to meet with politicians and to give these talks, and lots of media attention.”
When several researchers questioned Ms. Curry’s findings, she investigated their claims and concluded that her critics were correct.
“Part of it was bad data; part of it was natural climate variability,” she said.
But when Ms. Curry went public with that fact, she was shunned and pushed out of academia, she said.
Mr. Lindzen tells a similar tale of his experience when he began to question the climate narrative.
“Funding and publication became almost impossible,” he said, “and I was holding the most distinguished chair in meteorology,” which was MIT’s Sloan Professorship of Meteorology.
The Climate Money Machine
Asked why there would be a need to censor, alter, and cherry-pick data to support the global warming narrative, Mr. Lindzen said “Because it’s a hoax.”
Mr. Happer said:
“There is this huge fraction of the population that has been brainwashed into thinking this is an existential threat to the planet.
I don’t blame the people; they don’t have the background to know they are being deceived, but they are being deceived.”
The World Bank announced in September 2022 that it paid out a record $31.7 billion that fiscal year to help countries address ‘climate change’, a 19 percent increase from the $26.6 billion it paid out over the previous fiscal year.
And according to Reuters, the United States is projected to spend about $500 billion to fight ‘climate change’ over the next decade, including $362 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, $98 billion from the Infrastructure Act, and $54 billion from the CHIPS law.
“What would happen to sustainable energy, the worthless windmills and solar panels, if suddenly there were no climate change emergency?” Mr. Happer said. “They’re really not very good technology, and they’re doing a lot more harm than good, but nevertheless people are making lots of money.”
Many investors, most notably BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have cited government regulations and subsidies as a key reason why investments in “green” energies would be profitable.
Research grants to study ‘climate change’ are offered by many government agencies, including the EPA, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as by nonprofits, including Bloomberg Philanthropies and the MacArthur Foundation, which have paid out $458 million since 2014.
“Going back to ’88 to ’90, funding went up by a factor of 15,” Mr. Lindzen said. “You created a whole new community.”
“This was a small field in 1990; not a single member of the faculty at MIT called themselves a climate scientist. By 1996, everyone was a climate scientist, and that included impacts. If you’re studying cockroaches and you put in your grant, ‘cockroaches and climate,’ you are a climate scientist.”
Asked to respond to the professors’ comments, an EPA spokesperson said: “The Agency will review all comments we received as we work to finalize the proposed standards.”
See more here theepochtimes
Bold emphasis added
Editor’s note: PSI’s position is that CO2 has zero measurable effect on temperature, but we publish this article in the spirit of free speech and to encourage polite debate
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
In the mid 80s I had several telephone conversations with Professor Lindzen because he directly answers his phone when it rings. I never was a fluent speaker as he is and now can forget in a second what I intended to say I sent him an email and he immediately replied. However, he has not replied to two more emails I have sent. And I believe I can understand why.
So, Just sent a third email. IT is: Hi Dick,I will not send another email unless you respond to these two questions.
Do you know whom Louis Agassiz was?
Do you know what he considered his greatest achievement was?
I ask any reader of this comment the same questions because I consider what Agassiz considered his greatest achievement to be a very important fact relative to the practice of good science. And if Lindzen, or you, don’t know the answers that is now his or your problem.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
At wikipedia you can easily find an answer to the first question but not the answer to the second. To find Agassiz’s answer to the second you need to find (a difficult task) Lane Cooper’s 1914 book titled Louis Agassiz As A Teacher and read (page 1, first sentence): “When the question was put to Agassiz, ‘What do regard as your greatest work?’ He replied: ‘I have taught men to observe.”
Not as difficult as I imaged, for I Googled the book’s title and quickly discovered the text I have just quoted.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Jerry, a good anecdote. Michel de Montaigne said he preferred to talk to peasants because they had not been educated to reason wrongly. The leading scientific sources of Agassiz’s time told him that the spring floods had carried large boulders to certain remote Alpine locations. Local peasants told him the glaciers had moved them. Guess whose word he took.
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
I have long admired and applaud Drs. Lindzen and Happer for their public stand against the climate-change conjecture and the “greenhouse” gas fraud, amidst what is probably the most hostile scientific aggression in history. I do wish, however, that they devoted a little more time in a positive way to enlightening the public (not talking down to us) on the actual and generally benign; mechanisms of climate, ignored so far in the debate.
There is ample evidence that a much greater force than a trace gas (e.g., the oceans?) sets and regulates temperature;
evidence that it is not a radiant-energy “greenhouse,” but the Earth’s atmosphere – solar heated while gravitationally confined to the planet – that makes the climate by turbulently cycling heated surface air toward space and the poles like a reliable old heat engine; and
evidence that the trace gas claimed supposedly to radiate excess heat on the world is overall a coolant radiating energy overwhelmingly at 80 degrees below Celsius zero – as confirmed by the gigantic wedge in satellite images of CO2’s reduced surface re-emission where it has already radiated away incoming solar energy within low stratospheric temperatures. (Salby, “Physics of the atmosphere and climate” (2012), chapter 8.)
All these observed facts are consistent and make a creditable and very defensible scientific argument, but we have heard none of it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
Since meteorologist and climate scientist do not understand what information their main tools (thermometer and barometer) are giving them (momentum of the molecules striking them not kinetic energy or atmospheric pressure) they cannot explain what is happening in the atmosphere. Anybody who sweats knows evaporating water cools but the water cycle carrying energy to space is completely ignored and they concentrate on the dry gasses in the atmosphere. Until their fields become sciences based on accurate data and the correct laws of physics they will remain historians, studying the past and electing it to repeat.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb.
You write over and over that the fundamental tools of science, the barometer, which measures the pressure of the gas phase of matter, and the thermometer, which nearly everyone, scientist and non-scientist, uses as a tool to measure temperature, or pressure evidently, do. not measure what the scientists commonly consider these tools measure. But I cannot remember you ever writing what you believe they measure so we readers can compare what you believe with what the scientists, whom you criticize, believe.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
If you had read the comment it states that the instruments are measuring the momentum of the molecules striking them. The momentum consists of the energy of the molecules times their mass. If fewer molecules strike the instrument there is less mass and even though the kinetic energy of the molecules may be greater the energy transferred to the instrument can be less. Hotter air rises but the temperature, as measured by the thermometer, is always 10 degrees hotter at the bottom of the Grand Canyon than at the top. The molecules at the bottom have less kinetic energy and remain there but since there are more of them (denser) they transfer more energy to the thermometer giving it a higher reading.
Again a topics we have discussed many times that has failed to register with you.
Herb
Reply
Tom Anderson
| #
Herb,
It is also explained in terms of the ideal gas law relating volume and pressure to temperature. The higher north side of the canyon (or is it south) is also always a few degrees cooler than the lower south or is it north) side. To meteorologists this is the adiabatic lapse rate, declining gravitational pressure on a column of air (as Josef Loschmidt proposed in the 1860s). (It is one version of supposed high-altitude forcing from additional atmospheric CO2.) Mining engineers refer to it as auto-compression, the cause of higher temperature at lower mine depths (rather than proximity to the Earth’s molten core). It also explains the “Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction,” gravitational compression of a mass of interstellar gas to millions of degrees, forming a star by nuclear fusion.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
The atmosphere exist because the kinetic energy of the gasses are greater than their boiling points. As they gain more energy they expand against the force of gravity. (The ideal gas law is not an equation but a statement that the macro properties of a gas (pressure and volume) are the result of the properties of the molecules that make it (number, gas constant and kinetic energy of the molecules). A change in a macro property does not change the properties of components, only the other macro property.) When the gasses molecules lose energy the gas contracts. The loss of energy cannot cause an increase in energy.
Herb
Tom Anderson
| #
A point well taken Herb, but Will Happer is a physicist. I don’t know how remote his specialty is from what appears to be fairly common physics of the atmosphere, but I would imagine he has the capacity to familiarize himself with it.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
Physics has become completely dis-associated from reality. The basic contention that since the O2, N2, and Argon in the atmosphere do not absorb visible or IR radiation from the sun so the gasses do not absorb radiated energy and are heated by the surface of the Earth is a violation of the law of thermodynamics that states, all matter absorbs radiated energy and all matter with energy radiate energy. This law is an assumption (since there can be no evidence of anything that does not absorb or radiates energy) but it is an assumption that I accept as true.
Much of today’s physics is based on the second law of thermodynamics where there is ample evidence showing that it is not true. In a collision energy flows from the object with more energy (velocity) to the object with less energy regardless of the masses (law of conservation of momentum). Every time a fast small car collides with a slow moving truck its velocity (energy) decreases even if the truck has more kinetic energy and according to the 2nd law the car should gain velocity.
Planck’s theories and quantum physics are a result of the belief in the second law but unlike meteorology, which is based on history, physics is now pure fantasy.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
First, I believe you have stated that different gas moles have different properties. Doesn’t this contradict the IDEAL GAS Law where a gas molecule’s properties are considered nearly identical? And for nonscientists, a scientific law exists because there are no observations (measurements in this case which contradict it.
Relative to the situation of the Grand Canyon atmosphere’s temptations at bottom and at top. I’m not sure why you refer specially to Grand Canyon for during the afternoon over bare soil, or rock etc., during the afternoon the temperature below the solid is even hotter than the atmosphere less than a foot over the surface. This because it is the solid surface which most strongly absorbs the solar radiation and thus heating the solid beneath the surface and the atmosphere above the surface. And if there no shadow the, surface, if level, will be n uniform and there would be no cooler, more dense to flow under the hotter, less dense air to lift it.
That the atmosphere cools with increasing altitude (distance from the earth’s center of mass) their motion is decelerated when the molecules (independently move upward and are accelerated as they move downward by the action of gravity.
Can you agree with my explanations?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
I have difficulty understanding what you are saying because you don’t know what you’re saying. When you say “mole” are you talking about a molecule or the gram molecular weight of the gas? Avogadro’s law states a mole of any gas will have the same volume and number of molecules as a mole of any other gas in the same conditions.
If you’re talking about gas molecules there is a factor, r, in the ideal gas law that takes into account the different properties of different types of gasses.
I have no idea what your next gibberish is about. Hotter air rises because it is less dense. This is why hot air balloons fly. If the air at the bottom of the canyon is hotter than the air above it, it should rise. The reason it doesn’t rise is because it is not hotter and the reason the thermometer’s reading is higher is because the denser air has more molecules transferring energy to the thermometer.
Why do you think that as the atmosphere cools with increase altitude? If it is cooling (losing kinetic energy) shouldn’t it become denser? If you look at what the thermometer says it doesn’t matter if the temperature is declining with increasing altitude, as in the troposphere, or increasing, as in the stratosphere, the density will continue to decease. Do you know of any type of gas that behaves this way?
The molecules in the atmosphere are gaining energy from the sun, not the Earth. The energy flows from molecules at higher altitudes to molecules lower by collisions and eventually is transferred to the surface according to the law of conservation of momentum. The atmosphere is created by the kinetic energy of molecules not by gravity.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I have been and still am trying to teach. And your comment about the tools (thermometer and barometer) and about the difference of atmospheric temperatures at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and at its top presented a GOLDEN opportunity to teach critical observed facts about the Earth’s atmosphere if one hikes up a mountain’s slope with a thermometer and a barometer as anyone could do after these tools were invented
I am certain that during most hikes one would find, as one climbed, that the temperature usually decreased and that atmospheric pressure always decreased. Herb, do you accept these observations (measurements) that any could make after these tools were invented. Which wes before it became generally accepted that matter was composed of atoms and the atmosphere was composed of mainly molecules.
But these facts are not critically important if one is not aware of the natural phenomenon of diffusion. Which I experimentally studied for my thesis research. And I observe that DIFFUSION is not a commonly discussed topic even though I reason it is a critically necessary phenomenon if we are to understand the likely cause of El Niño events. But before one can understand this possible cause of El Niño events you must understand the diffusion of water molecules in the atmosphere.
In Chaper (lecture) 43 one can read what Richard Feynman taught his students about diffusion in ‘The Feynman Lectures On Physics’ Vol I’
This is how Feynman began: 43–1 Collisions between molecules
“We have considered so far only the molecular motions in a gas which is in thermal equilibrium. We want now to discuss what happens when things are near, but not exactly in, equilibrium. In a situation far from equilibrium, things are extremely complicated, but in a situation very close to equilibrium we can easily work out what happens. To see what happens, we must, however, return to the kinetic theory. Statistical mechanics and thermodynamics deal with the equilibrium situation, but away from equilibrium we can only analyze what occurs atom by atom, so to speak.”
“As a simple example of a nonequilibrium circumstance, we shall consider the diffusion of ions in a gas. Suppose that in a gas there is a relatively small concentration of ions—electrically charged molecules. If we put an electric field on the gas, then each ion will have a force on it which is different from the forces on the neutral molecules of the gas. If there were no other molecules present, an ion would have a constant acceleration until it reached the wall of the container. But because of the presence of the other molecules, it cannot do that; its velocity increases only until it collides with a molecule and loses its momentum. It starts again to pick up more speed, but then it loses its momentum again. The net effect is that an ion works its way along an erratic path, but with a net motion in the direction of the electric force. We shall see that the ion has an average “drift” with a mean speed which is proportional to the electric field—the stronger the field, the faster it goes. While the field is on, and while the ion is moving along, it is, of course, not in thermal equilibrium, it is trying to get to equilibrium, which is to be sitting at the end of the container. By means of the kinetic theory we can compute the drift velocity. (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_43.html)
Herb, if you do not read what Feynman taught, please do not criticize him for what he taught. Relative to your comment, when and where did I write this to you? I do appreciate the opportunities you give to inform readers what other scientists beside myself have written and taught.
Have a good day
Reply
Alan
| #
I give up reading as soon as I read that radiation or heat is trapped in the atmosphere. Neither can be trapped in the atmosphere. Even a greenhouse that prevents radiation passing through the glass does not cause any warming of the greenhouse and this has been proven repeatedly by experiments. Heat cannot be trapped because it is defined as thermal energy transferring from a high to a low temperature location. If thermal energy is trapped then it cannot cause any heating. A lump of coal containing energy does not cause any warming. Climate alarmist isn’t a hoax it is lies about basic physics.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Alan, I suggest your read the Happer & van Wijngaarden primer on GHG, which was very enlightening to me. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00808
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Koen,
The contention that N2 and O2 absorb no energy radiated by the sun while the O3 in the stratosphere (at a concentration of 10 ppm) is able to absorb over 90% of the UV radiation is beyond ridiculous. Try painting one square cm of a 100,000 square cm pane of glass and see if it blocks over 90% of the visible light from going through the glass.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again,
The O2 is absorbing no energy from the sun but it is the absorption of UV from the sun that causes the O2 molecule into atoms and create the O3. Give me a break.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Sport: n. 3. a Pleasantry; raillery; as, he questioned them in sport. b Mock, mockery; derision. (1959 Websters)
Einstein concluded: “The only source of knowledge is experience.” I do not know any of your ages but I speculate that neither of you is over 80. And from reading each of your many comments, I conclude that my experiences have been quite different from your experiences. Hence, I do not make comments for sport; I make comments to share the knowledge I have gained from my experiences.
However, based on your comments, directed toward my comment, I conclude that your comments are primarily made for sport. What I cannot conclude is whether their primary purpose is for a or b.
Have a good day
Reply