I see that McKitrick took down the actual reviewer comments (probably found them too damning). This is from another board where the topic of McKitrick's submission to Nature was being discussed and what the reviewers said! The follow are quotes from the reviewers. When you read them you see that not one recommended that it be published!
1) At this stage, I think any Correction or Retraction by MBH98 is premature and really not required.
2) The reply by MBH04 on the previous comment by MM04 addresses in. my opinion both points raised by MM04 in a convincing way. Although it is for a reviewer impossible to check all the technical details involved in this reply, they arguments used by MBH04 seem plausible, and I would say they are probably correct. This is of course no guarantee that the entirety of MBH98 work and conclusions are free of error.
3) In summary, judging from the present version of the manuscript and the response by MBH04, I now think that basis for MM04 has wavered and that further work , or further convincing evidence, would be needed to present a more solid case.
4) Considering the changes relative to the first version of MM04, it seems to me that the case presented by MM04 has weakened considerably.
5) Unfortunately, I have the impression that preconceived notions affect the potential "audit" by McIntyre and McKitrick. That would, of course, not mean that their assessment is necessarily wrong, but might explain the rather harsh and tricky wording used here and at other places by both parties, and I generally do not believe that this sort of an "audit" and rebuttal will lead to a better understanding of past climate variations.
"I see that McKitrick took down the actual reviewer comments (probably found them too damning). "
NO. He had multiple reviewers and the quotes are there.
See:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html
Other reviewers were not convinved that Mann had corrected ... and with good reason.
For any reviewer to say "At this stage, I think any Correction or Retraction by MBH98 is premature and really not required. " ... without checking the data themselves is irresponsible. And clearly other dreviewers complained that it shouldnt be published BECAUSE it was a technical issue that required more time to independently verify.
Obviously some are in circle-the-wagons mode.