The first four are already up.
- Climate Cuttings 1
Steve McIntyre notices some surprising features of the temperature record [...] How, he asks, can these scientists claim to know the temperature a millenium ago to an accuracy of a couple of tenths of a degree when they have errors of half a degree in 2005?
- Climate Cuttings 2
In the face of Freedom of Information requests, the IPCC has finally put the reviewers comments on the Fourth Assessment Report online. As part of the conditions for looking at the comments they demand that you agree not to reproduce them in part or in full! It's flabbergasting to see the IPCC say that it would be "inappropriate" to show the missing Briffa data (you know, where the tree rings suggested falling temperatures in recent decades)...
- Climate Cuttings 3
In the last edition of Climate Cuttings, I noted that NOAA was trying to stop the Surfacestations project by hiding the names of the volunteer station managers in the reference database. They now appear foolish as well as disingenuous...
- Climate Cuttings 4
Schwartz et al, writing on the Nature Climate Reports site, say that the IPCC is exagerrating the predictive power of its computer models. As I observed some weeks ago, Kevin Trenberth—an IPCC lead author—says they're not forecasts but scenarios...
Do go and have a look through them; some of the stuff that we are being fed is absolutely scandalous. Well, I say scandalous because there are people—yes, and some of them are scientists—who are actively lying to us (no fucking surprise there, eh?).
I may well put a permanent link in the sidebar, when I get a minute.