Mann, Wahl, Ammann, Ritson, Ramsdorff are all dining out on the fact that von Storch et al 2004 did not implement a detrending step in their implementation of MBH98. (Although given that Mann would not be "intimidated" into releasing his algorithm and cited Zorita et al 2003 to us as evidence that people could implement his algorithm, they should be embarrassed that people still could misinterpret their methodology. )
They also criticize the Echo-G model as though that had anything to do with the price of eggs. For the purposes of VZ04, the Echo-G model simply gave a set of gridcell results with a covariance structure.
Anyway, the pseudoproxies for Mann et al 2005 were archived. It was very easy to do the same calculations on them that I did last week on the VZ pseudoproxies. Guess what I found. Here’s a graph comparing detrended and non-detrended calibration for the 104 pseudoproxy network; the results for a 22-gridcell sample are very similar. So far I am unable to see that detrending makes a tinker’s damn in the results. (I’m not 100% sure of these calculations, but I’m pretty sure.)
NH Temperature – Black – NH average; blue – MBH; cyan – MBH detrended.
You’ll notice that Wahl et al. did not actually produce their own calculations. They merely hyper-ventilated in their article in Popular Science. In the Burger and Cubasch discussion, Mann using the sock-puppet Anonymous Referee #2 says that VZ should “come clean” about detrending. Even if true, what does that have anything to do with the review of Bürger and Cubasch? Is this what the Team has descended to? Again, I don’t see that the detrending/detrending matters a damn for the point being made, and, in no way, justifies the bullying.