One thing that readers of this interview are missing is the fact that Dr. Mann’s dismissal of the criticism of the "Hockey Stick" science is papering over some serious, ongoing concerns about data analysis and methodology in the paleoclimate proxy studies. I say this as a strong science advocate of climate change and the related problems — meaning that I understand the science, and I know the problems we’re facing. However, in reading and following the Hockey Stick debate since it began, and attempting to be as fair as possible to all parties, I can now tell that Mann’s responses are defensive and his public posturing is at odds with the reality of deficient scientific practice. McIntyre (of McIntyre and McKitrick) has continued to critically address the statistical problems of paleoclimate data analysis, facing an uphill struggle and some unfair commentary, and his criticism is valid. If the debate in this arena is to be resolved, Dr. Mann and his seconds are going to have to improve their data handling significantly. Recent publications have indicated, in the peer review press, that the certainty of the "Hockey Stick" portrayal is not what it seems. In order to advance the science properly, it must be practiced properly.
The reader’s comment was posted both at realclimate, where the debate appears to have been swiftly censored, but a couple of illuminating responses from the Hockey Team were elicited at Daily Kos, including a response to an inquiry about Bürger and Cubasch.
Schmidt and Mann asserted that the M&M criticisms had been "debunked" by:
2) by the recent von Storch-Zorita and Huybers comments at GRL promoted at realclimate here (where they censored my responses – see Is Gavin Schmidt Honest?). For our side of these comments, see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=393; http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=413; http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=416; http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=422; http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=369; http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=370; http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=405.
In respect to Bürger and Cubasch, they said that the criticisms "would have been a useful contribution to the literature about 10 years ago", but they had "moved on". They are such nomads. They also cited Rutherford Mann et al  as somehow refuting Bürger and Cubasch. I’ll try to figure out the basis of their claim.
Mann discussed the status of the Ammann submission to GRL as follows:
You incorrectly referred to a GRL paper article by the NCAR group as "rejected". Actually, that original decision (made by the same editor who presided over the publication of McIntyre and McKitrick and Burger and Cubasch) was over-ruled by the new GRL editor-in-chief Jay Famiglietti, which is itself quite telling. Famiglietti’s comments on the ordeal, along with those of other leading scientists can be found here.
This links to the Environmental Science & Technology article discussed in August. Discussion of our experience with Famiglietti begins here with others that you can find under the Wahl and Ammann category. I’m inclined to agree here with Mann that the over-ruling by Famiglietti was quite "telling", but would probably draw a different moral from the process than he does.
I might add that GRL subsequently rejected one of the two comments after its re-submission (resulting in a substantial waste of time for us) and that the process of review of the re-submitted Ammann comment will only begin in conjunction with our Reply, which we plan to submit in a couple of days and has accordingly not yet begun. (I’ll post up a draft Reply when it’s ready – maybe tomorrow.) The UCAR website only says that the Ammann submission to Stephen Schneider’s Climatic Change has been "provisionally accepted"; it does not say that it is "in press". Mann might know something that the rest of us don’t, but he also said on Sept 29, 2005 that both manuscripts were "pending final approval".