Dmitry Sonechkin, the #2 author of Moberg, Sonechkin et al , has replied that he cannot send the Indigirka series used in Moberg et al  because the "series developers do not want to disseminate it. They say this series will be re-calculated soon to reject some errors in it (a general trend etc.)."
If the series developers did not want to disseminate it, you’d think that allowing it to be used in a multiproxy study in Nature is pretty strange way of not disseminating it. Secondly, if the series developers now change the series, what good is the new version in understanding Moberg et al . So if I want to actually look at the data, I now need to get into the same old war: write a Materials Complaint to Nature and fight with Nature for 12 months. And I’m sure that this stuff is ear-marked for IPCC 4AR. What a goofy way of running a scientific community. Then people get mad at me for being hard to get along with.
Sonechkin went on to say that the three bristlecone pine series, Indian Garden, Methuselah Walk and White Mountain Master – which I hadn’t asked for – were available from the well-known paleoclimate databank. Perhaps this comment wasn’t meant in a condescending way, although a similar comment by the Leinen of NSF was made in a condescending way (without any justification on her part.)
While I hadn’t asked for the bristlecone versions as used, Moberg cautioned that there might be a problem with a one-year discrepancy in the dates of the bristlecone series. He said that he recalls "from discussions with Dmitry, that we had some problems with deciding to which year we should assign the WUS-tree data. It is not impossible that, for example, the year 1962 in my file actually corresponds to 1963 in the progams that the Russian colleagues used to make the reconstruction. Honestly, I am not quite sure about this." Moberg goes on to point out that their "reconstruction does not contain any information on timescales shorter than 4 years" so that the "problem is entirely negligible for all conclusions drawn in the paper. It would also be nearly impossible to see by eye any difference between two versions of the reconstruction with the WUS trees shifted one year back or forwards." I can’t imagine why there would be any difficulty in deciding what year to use in the ITRDB data. If they weren’t sure about this in discussions, you’d have thought that they’d have sorted it out before publishing in Nature.
I guess that means that they probably got it wrong, but it doesn’t matter. As a small mercy, I guess it also means that we won’t be hearing claims based upon the "warmest year of the millennium" from them.