From: Steve McIntyre

Sent: March 17, 2004 8:33 AM

To: Ashman, Dinah

Cc: Ross McKitrick

Subject: Re: Nature corrigendum Mann02478

Dear Dinah,

Quite frankly, I was astonished that there should be any overt errors in a Corrigendum - omissions I could understand, but overt errors? It was really strange to see series mis-described and to see incorrect dates in date corrections.

I really think that it would be a good idea for someone to go through the revised SI. It's probably pretty hard to find an uninvolved person who can do this in a useful way; I'm quite prepared to do so in a very expeditious manner and to preserve any required confidentiality. The offer to do this is merely to give you an option and I quite understand if you prefer to handle matters differently.

I'm going to be going through the revised SI at some point anyway. I would be surprised if it dealt with all the pertinent matters as it currently stands. As I mentioned before, it's usually easier to deal with things while the file's open rather than having to pick up the file again.

While you may not normally review the contents of an SI, in this case, you're dealing with SI to a Corrigendum and perhaps a distinction can be drawn. Also, because there were overt errors in the short text of the Corrigendum, there would be a need for extra caution.

Regards, Steve