Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin 

In an interview published by the German public broadcaster MDR (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk) on September 1, 2026—titled “Es gibt einen Markt für Desinformation” (“There is a Market for Disinformation”)—prominent alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf spoke with MDR Wissen to address the tactics of climate change skepticism, which he says of course is funded by evil special business interests, and how communication to the public must evolve.

In the MDR interview and his broader public communication strategy, Stefan Rahmstorf addresses the rise of alternative, populist, and fringe media platforms.

Exclude skeptics from debate

He suggests that rather than trying to engage them in debate or change their minds directly, he calls on mainstream journalists and established media outlets to strictly avoid giving a platform to skeptic voices from alternative channels.

Investigate skeptics

According to Rahmstorf, alternative media channels often frame their content as independent, “free speech,” or grassroots skepticism, and calls on the established media institutions and investigative journalists to trace where these channels get their material, who funds them, and how political or economic interest groups amplify them.

“We scientists explain the data and facts of climate change, but journalists need to investigate who is serving the market for disinformation and where the money is coming from,” says Rahmstorf. “”It is the job of journalism to uncover who is behind these campaigns, who is funding them, and what interests are being pursued.”

Avoid debating skeptics

Rahmstorf says that it is ineffective to try to debate or convince dedicated alternative media creators or their hardcore audiences in comment sections. It’s a debate that alarmist climate scientists cannot win. The Potsdam Climate Institute researcher thinks communication efforts should focus on the broader public—those who are exposed to alternative media snippets via social media or messaging apps. Clear, accessible explanations using real-world data and verifiable facts help build immunity against misleading claims before they take root.

Rahmstorf tells MDR that science communicators and mainstream journalists need to anticipate the false arguments likely to emerge from alternative outlets and pre-bunk them.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
22 Comments
Neil Pryke
September 2, 2026 10:11 pm

Looks nasty…are there no places that catastrophists will not go..?

Nevada_Geo
September 2, 2026 10:15 pm

When I was five years old I was not an eloquent speaker, nor did I have well formed, cogent arguments based on facts. So I won arguments by placing my hands over my ears and yelling, “LALALALALALALALALALA!!!” at the top of my voice and if that didn’t work I’d start throwing rocks. These days I just resort to sarcasm on the internet. Anyway, obviously some people just never grow up.

September 2, 2026 10:15 pm

I don’t think the goal should be to obscure or exclude skeptical voices simply because they are skeptical.

Skeptical views should be welcome, but they should be held to the same basic standards as any other contribution: accuracy, honesty, and a fair representation of the evidence.

P. Gosselin is free to object to his exclusion, but if someone’s contributions consistently misrepresent evidence or rely on misleading presentations of data, there can be legitimate reasons to limit their reach for the benefit of the broader public.

To give one specific example regarding P. Gosselin of NTZ:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/01/germany-january-mean-temperatures-falling-since-1988-contradicting-claims-of-warming/

The argument relies on January mean temperatures in a single region, which are noisy enough that you can cherry-pick a particular period and manufacture a seemingly meaningful trend.

That’s just one of about a hundred simple examples of his.

But whine away, PG.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 2, 2026 10:33 pm

You must be delighted that you are able to come here and spout any nonsense you like without censorship. But of course sceptics actually believe in free speech.

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 2, 2026 10:39 pm

I believe in free speech as well.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 2, 2026 10:44 pm

But only for people who agree with you.

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 2, 2026 10:55 pm

 people who agree with you.”

Skeptics agree with me on this because they also support free speech.

I understand that may be a controversial concept for you. It’s okay, though. Not everyone supports free speech.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 2, 2026 11:00 pm

Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 2, 2026 11:02 pm

Bill remains impressively committed to being anti-free-speech.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 2, 2026 11:14 pm

Thank you for confirming what I said about your reading comprehension.

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 2, 2026 11:20 pm

You didn’t say it explicitly, but you continued arguing against my position on free speech, so I think it’s fair to assume that’s what you were implying.

DonK31
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 2, 2026 10:53 pm

Free speech for me, but not for thee.

Reply to  DonK31
September 2, 2026 10:59 pm

theeeeee

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 3, 2026 12:49 am

It’s nothing to do with free speech but everything to do with legitimate scientific enquiry. Dogma belongs to religion not science. However, being contrary for the sake of it is not scientific either.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Eldrosion
September 3, 2026 12:31 am

If you are claiming to have examined the entire body of evidence which disproves and contradicts ALL the models of the IPCC and found the fatal flaw in every one of them, then your freedom of speech is being used to present a downright lie.
We are indeed free to lie, but lying has consequences as it is evil doing.
The freedom of individuals is unlimited, it is culturally managed by having a system of laws and provision for a fair trial and punishments mandated and put in place.
Nobody here disbelieves in the empirical evidence that climate has changed, climate is changing and climate will continue to change.
MAN MADE – CRISIS – BY USE OF CARBON COMPOUNDS AS FUEL is not truth and never has been.
There are absolutely no grounds for declaring that the state of the earth covering the time since the Americas were colonised by Europeans to now is somehow optimum, or normal or divinely bidden to be stable as a gift from the gods. There is abundant evidence that a mildly warmer epoch will be beneficial to humanity overall, originating as a species out of the Horn of Africa.

September 2, 2026 10:29 pm

 journalists need to investigate who is serving the market for disinformation and where the money is coming from

Please do! And when they not only can’t find where the money is coming from, but discover that there is no money, what will they do?

Nick Stokes
September 2, 2026 10:30 pm

I looked at the linked interview, and it didn’t have Rahmstorf saying anything like what is claimed here. In fact, it is about someone called Armin Falk. Rahmstorf is briefly mentioned, twice, but nothing about media, debating etc.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Nick Stokes
September 3, 2026 12:35 am
Iain Reid
September 2, 2026 10:39 pm

Quote from the text ““We scientists explain the data and facts of climate change”

The problem with that statement is that the ‘facts are not well understood or verified in many instances. He may be convinced but that is not any reason to silence opposing views. If he is a scientist who accepts the scientific method he should welcome challenge, that is how science progresses.
It is irrelevant who funds the research, as long as the paper can be easily scrutinised, and replicated, good science is good science, the finance source does not matter. Using that as a reason to dismiss any opposing view is illogical and pejorative.

Rod Evans
September 3, 2026 12:22 am

Surely he is not suggesting the high priests of Climate Alarm are failing to get their message across.
Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, George Monbiot, and all those other highly regarded scientists must be having an impact aren’t they?……
Maybe Herr Rahmstorf,/or Herr Falk should join their erstwhile colleague and avoid venturing down aisle nine in Wegmans if he can’t take the withering truth let alone the looks…..

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 3, 2026 12:46 am

You have to admire the brass neck.

September 3, 2026 12:59 am

There is a Market for Disinformation

As the hundreds of billions spent on impractical “green energy” projects, ineffectual “carbon capture” schemes, and the inflationary market distortions of “cap and trade” and “carbon taxes” has proven. The market is artificial, created entirely by leftist governing elites, inspired by the biggest hoax ever perpetrated and funded by subservient taxpayers. It is not the result of any real-world pressure. But that artificial market, which has not diminished global temperatures the tiniest fraction of a degree nor even slowed the (modest) increase, is highly attractive. The money is real even though the “problem” it purports to solve isn’t.