Senator Rennick discusses climate data accuracy with Professor Michael Mann

Senator RENNICK: Dr Mann, you talk about a scientific consensus. My question is: what are the facts? I want to refer to two energy budgets I have here in front of me—one given to me by the CSIRO that had a
downwelling radiation from greenhouse gases of 333 watts per square metre, and one from the Australian Academy of Science that had a downwelling radiation from greenhouse gases of 342 watts per square metre.

There's a difference in downwelling radiation between the two scientific institutions, of what they claim to be in their energy budget, of nine watts per square metre. The IPCC has claimed that the radiative forcing from carbon dioxide has increased by two watts per square metre to 1,750, regardless of cause. Given the two scientific bodies have a difference of nine watts per square metre—that's over 400 per cent of what the IPCC is claiming in the increase of carbon dioxide—why is it we can't question facts like that?

Dr Mann: You're citing some figures. I would have to look at them and put them in context and make sure that what you're describing is correct. It's actually irrelevant. You're talking about some large absolute numbers.

What we're dealing with is the difference between these numbers. In a very real sense, it's easier to measure those differences. It's why we talk about temperature changes in terms of temperature anomalies. We don't report the actual temperature of the earth, because that depends on baselines, different elevations, and we'll have different temperatures so we measure differences, and we can often measure differences very accurately.

Read the full transcript at: https://www.gerardrennick.com.au/senator-rennick-discusses-climate-data-accuracy-with-professor-michael-mann