Comments on the Testimony of Dr. Richard Somerville

Written by Paul C. Knappenberger

On March 8, 2011, Dr. Richard Somerville supplied written testimony to the U.S House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power. Dr. Somerville’s testimony was an eloquently packaged collection of general alarmist talking points that closely follows his 2009 Copenhagen Diagnosis. It consists of a selective presentation of post-AR4 findings on climate change—carefully groomed to forward his point of view that disaster is imminently upon us if large and drastic cuts in greenhouse gases emissions are not immediately undertaken.

For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.

[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
James Sexton

This is getting to be a riot. I haven’t seen one alarmist even recognize the fact that the earth has cooled in the last decade or so. (Depending upon which data set one wants to use.) And they call skeptics the “D” word? Acknowledging reality would go a long way towards their credibility…………. if they have any to redeem.
While I haven’t followed the daily temps of UAH, as long as La Nina is kicking, I fully expect UAH to move to a negative decadal trend either this month or next. RSS and HadCrut already are.

Did he get anything right?
Oh, yea, his name.


I have to wonder, is there now a “Copenhagen interpretation” in climate science like there used to be in quantum theory? Like “we know it works if we do it this way, just don’t ask why”. The differnce of course is that physicists continue to try and fix the ideas of quantum mechanics to reality, whereas climate science is hellbent on staying in the first class lounge at Kastrup until someone cuts off the frequent flyer miles.


James Sexton says:
April 22, 2011 at 11:28 am
“And they call skeptics the “D” word?”
First rule: Tell your lie long enough and loud enough. Second rule: always accuse your enemy of your own worst crime (in this case, denial of science).


Chip, typo in the chart on page 4: “prodected” instead of “predicted”.

John Whitman

It appears that both the AGW by CO2 alarmists and the concernists (a.k.a. luke warmers) are better in media offense than they are in scientific defense. Therefore they know that to have a chance of achieving their activist goals then they must primarily concentrate on communications via the media, the NGOs and government bodies.
They have lost the advantage in the scientific argument. We know it, they know it and they know we know it.

We see that in every single instance of comparison, the Theory of the Greenhouse Effect appears to contradict what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about the exact same physical situation.
The conclusion of this article is very simple: there is no such thing as a radiative Theory of the Greenhouse Effect, not in real greenhouses, and certainly not in any planetary atmosphere known to man. The true role of the atmosphere, on Earth, is that it cools the ground, not warms it. Therefore, there is no such thing as Anthropogenic Global Warming or anthropogenic-CO2 induced climate change, because that supposition is based on the false Theory of the Greenhouse Effect.
Please see “Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect”, at


To anyone who has studied professional propaganda techniques in any depth, Somerville’s testimony–wherever he speaks–never fails to produce an “aha” moment.


I listened to the hearing. It’s found here:
At ~01:21:00 Somerville was asked by Waxman to describe the independent (from models) lines of evidence that support the scientific conclusions that global warming and climate change is primarily caused by humans.
Somerville cites a “thick rope” of evidence, the IPCC, hundreds of papers……… Einsteins & Galileos……etc., but absolutely no specific evidence.
I sure wish he had answered the question. I would really like to know what evidence, independent of climate models, shows climate change is primarily caused by humans.
Could someone here answer that question for me?

Richard Lund

I am a PhD engineer, and have been looking for an explanation of all of this for a Long time. The link provided by Andres Valencia, above, to “Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” is the best thing I have ever read!
Anthony, or others, can you please comment on this paper.

Fred Svetz

“Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” may be an excellent paper, but oh, please, get rid of the bright red print on a black background! This is easily the ugliest, hardest to read print format I’ve ever seen!