I am an experienced data analyst and have followed the Deflategate controversy with interest. I wish to draw the following material misdescription and error in the Exponent report to your attention. Will Happer, who I am copying, knows me and can vouch for me. I am also copying this to Daniel Goldberg and Jeffrey Kessler.

In Figure 27, Exponent stated that the Patriot and Colt footballs were “set with the Logo Gauge” at 12.5 psig and 13 psig respectively.

However, this description is erroneous. The transients in the figure can only result from the footballs being set with the Master Gauge (NOT the Logo Gauge) at 12.5 and 13.0 respectively.

The incorrect description is very material, because, if the footballs had been set with the Logo Gauge – as stated in the figure, the transients would be lower and the time interval of potential intersection with observations would be increased to approximately 6 minutes even at the 67 deg F initialization temperature assumed in the Figure (the temperature most adverse to the Patriots). After correcting the error, it can no longer be said that anomalous Patriot deflation exists regardless of assumption on gauges.

While both you and Exponent have argued that the Non-Logo gauge must have been used for Patriot measurements, this does not justify Exponent’s erroneous description of the procedures used in Figure 27 (and 30) or any conclusions drawn from that figure. I have described the issue in more detail https://climateaudit.org/2015/08/07/exponents-trick-to-exaggerate-the-decline/

I find it very troubling that judgements have already been made based on figures that have been incorrectly described. I draw this to your attention in the belief that you will also be concerned and will feel obliged to take steps to correct the research record as soon as possible. Obviously, the Deflategate controversy has drawn very attention and is proceeding to a difficult decision, a decision that, in my opinion, is made more difficult by the misrepresentation of these figures in the Wells Report. In my opinion, there is some urgency that you correct the record expeditiously if you concur with my analysis, as I anticipate that you will.

I previously drew this error to the attention of Ted Wells on June 29 without any effect, but hope that you will have more concern.

Regards, Stephen McIntyre Climate Audit​

Dear Dr Marlow,