The submissions will probably be posted eventually on the inquiry website, but some have already appeared.
Richard Tol’s submission is quite short, saying that nothing much has changed since AR4 in the report, and that emissions reductions targets are a bad idea.
Mike Haseler (former Green party member turned sceptic) has posted his submission, which is much longer. I am not sure about the wisdom of referring to Star Trek in the first paragraph, but he criticises climate models for their failure to model natural variability or to match reality, particularly in regard to the early and late 20th century warming. (Figure 10.1 in IPCC chapter 10 shows this – the models don’t get the 1900-1940s warming).
My submission is quite brief and just summarises a few of the points already made on this blog – the dodgy 95% claim, the reality of decreased confidence and the spin in data presentation.
Any others? Please post links in comments.
Update: Marcel Krok has posted his submission. It discusses decreasing estimates of climate sensitivity estimates, the warming pause and the model/observations divergence.