'

From: Steve McIntyre

Sent: November 17, 2004 11:42 AM

To: Cotter, Rosalind

Cc: Ross McKitrick

Subject: Re: Nature ms 2004-01-14277: posting of refs' reports

Dear Dr Cotter,

Thank you for this permission to post up the referee reports. As I mentioned in my letter, I think that this unusual step is justified in this circumstance and I appreciate your cooperation.

I think that your decision to limit critiques to 500 words with no SI is one that is inappropriate in a case like ours. While space is limited, Mann et al (1998) was an important paper and continues to be applied. If we did not make a valid point, then obviously the matter ends; however, if our point was valid, I think that you have an obligation to provide space.

While I am obviously irritated about some aspects of the handling of this submission, I think that the process of submission and response under your supervision was useful and has contributed to an improved articulation of the issues surrounding this widely-applied paper. You might be interested to know that Richard Muller of UC-Berkely has written an article at technologyreview.com agreeing with one of our criticisms of Mann's hockey stick graph. I will be presenting a paper based on this at the AGU conference in December in San Francisco.

There has been considerable publicity given to the statement in the Corrigendum that the errors in MBH98 did not matter. It was even reported in a general circulation paper in Toronto as Nature's considered view on the matter. I would appreciate clarification of the following two points in connection with the Corrigendum. Dinah Ashman advised me the Supplementary Information to the Corrigendum by Mann et al. was not edited; if it was not edited, I presume that the SI was likewise not externally peer reviewed. Could you confirm this? Also, from his comments, at least one of our panel of referees did not seem to have been involved in reviewing the Corrigendum by Mann et al. I presume that the Corrigendum itself (or at least the statement in controversy) was handled by Nature's own editors and was not externally peer reviewed. Could you please confirm this.

Thank you for your attention.

Regards, Steve McIntyre

[SM: No answer received]