From The KlimaNachrichten

By Frank Bosse

We had informed about this very strange interview in “heute” from ZDF.
Dunja Hayali got a “confirmation” for a rather “far-fetched” thesis of the German Meteorological Society: We could reach global warming of 3°C above pre-industrial temperature levels as early as 2050.
Stefan Rahmstorf was used as a key witness and was announced as follows in the video:

“He works at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and is one of the leading international experts in this field” 

We had also shown how he avoided a correct answer to the question posed “3 degrees possible in 2050?”.

So Dunja Hayali could feel vindicated in the end. At min. 4:19 comes her message:

That this topic, which was really at the top of the agenda for a few years, is no longer a priority for some people, even for a few governments…. wouldn’t you have to communicate differently?

Quite apart from the fact that this is a massive election campaign aid for the Greens (it is their topic No. 1!), she is absolutely right, just different from what she thinks.

Rahmstorf should have expressed much more clearly that the requested 3°C in 2050 is exaggerated and “far-fetched”.
This is what Zeke Hausfather (a truly recognized expert and IPCC author) did in a post on X on 9/28/2025:

„… it is far-fetched that we will reach 3°C globally in 2050.”

Clear question, clear answer! He substantiates this and shows the few climate models that predict 3°C warming in 2050:

They have “only” one problem: They already show 2°C warming today, while in the ZDF interview Stefan Rahmstorf rightly mentions that we are currently only seeing 1.3°C.
The model mean shows this, but these three outlier models have a much too high, unrealistic sensitivity to a CO2 increase and are therefore out of the question for all real experts for future projections of the real Earth! Gavin Schmidt (NASA) assigns them to a “wolfpack” here, they should not be used, as this leads to erroneous results, as an example for Arctic sea ice shows.

The question inevitably arises: Is Stefan Rahmstorf the expert he was announced to be?

It is not so easy to answer. It knew the real facts for sure, he doesn’t do research in a vacuum. So there is only one possible explanation: With his torrent of words about “we are at the top of the predictions” (also inaccurate, as shown in the article linked above), he avoided a clear answer, as his colleague Zeke Hausfather gave. He thus accepts that the viewer is manipulated by Hayali in the way she did. He allowed a completely “far-fetched” thesis not to be clearly rejected by a “leading expert”. Thus, the viewer, who was not familiar with details, could come to the conclusion: “Rahmstorf has confirmed the forecast!”. In truth, it should have been cleared away!

Therefore, Hayali is right: Rahmstorf, as a scientist, MUST communicate differently. He has to convey clearly what we know to be certain, what we do not know to be certain and what is practically impossible.

So a suspicion falls on him: A cronyism in exaggeration and climate scaremongering with certain media.

What could a possible preliminary talk have looked like?

Hayali (H): “We want to know your opinion on the DMG forecast of 3 degrees in 2050”.

Rahmstorf (SR): “That is highly unlikely!”

H: “But we can’t and don’t want to put it that way, it misses the mark.”

SR: “What do you suggest?”

H: “Perhaps you will find comparisons that I could then interpret as if it were very possible?”

SR: “Yes, in the spirit of the matter that would be…. I come up with something. I will choose unctuous and somewhat enigmatic words.”

However, Rahmstorf did not seem to have felt completely comfortable in his skin during the interview on the station, his voice sounded a little brittle even during the welcome.

Perhaps he should no longer be questioned in the media until he has learned his communication lessons in science and gives adequate answers to clear questions?

For the reputation of climate science in Germany, this would actually be a good choice!