The book finally appeared as
Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto
, edited by
Ernesto Zedillo, and published by the Brookings Institution Press and the Center for the Study of
Globalization at Yale.
The papers by me and Rahmstorf form Chapters 2 and 3 respectively.
An Exchange on Climate Science and Alarm
On October 21-22, 2005, the Yale Center for Globalization held a conference on “Global Climate
Policy After 2012".
Speakers holding a variety of views addressed the conference, but, as usual,
there was little time for actual debate.
It was understood that the papers presented at the
conference would be published, but, for reasons that I am not privy to, the publication was
delayed for over two years .
During this interval, papers were, apparently modified, and, in
particular, the paper by Rahmstorf was turned into a specific attack on my paper.
This would not
have bothered me, per se.
However, the changes were made without informing me, and no
opportunity was offered me to defend myself.
This is rather unusual – at least outside the topic
of climate change.
Under the circumstances, I am making available my paper, Rahmstorf’s
paper, and my response.
In point of fact, the combination of these three documents will, I hope,
better convey the nature of the debate that exists on the matter of the science behind global
warming alarm. As one will quickly realize, the debate is peculiar in that my paper was devoted
to noting the disconnect between global warming, per se, and alarm, while Rahmstorf’s was
largely devoted to global warming itself, a matter concerning which there is substantial
The difference is already evident in the titles of the two papers.
Mine was “Is Global
Warming Alarm Founded on Fact?” while Rahmstorf’s was “Anthropogenic Climate Change:
Revisiting the Facts.”
Although, Rahmstorf specifically attacks my paper, his own does go
beyond this to make many unjustifiable claims and arguments.
I should add that time has not
permitted me to fully address all the peculiar and unjustified claims in Rahmstorf’s paper.
mention this only because, I would not want the reader to assume that failure to mention
Richard S. Lindzen
March 2, 2008