papers such and Mann and more recently Gergis. Leo G says: July 9, 2012 at 5:46 pm At RC, the take away message I got, was that this study has a unique feature, in that the divergence from the modern temps does not happen. =========== The divergence problem is a mathematical artifact of calibration. Formally known as "selection on the dependent variable", it is a statistical flaw in the methodology that creates bias in the results. This bias leads to divergence at the calibration boundaries, and misleading results over the proxy period. In other words, it isn't the trees that are at fault. It is the knuckleheads looking at the tree cores that have improperly applied amplifier technology to statistics, thinking they were inventing a better way to look at noisy data. What they invented instead was a way to amplify noise, while making it look like signal. They fooled not only themselves, but most of the world as well. Thanks for pointing out the dichotomy here. I don't want to be "hoisted on my own petard" as it t'war. I have YET to see someone give a straightfoward explanation of the HOW and WHY "tree rings" can determine ANYTHING except the favorable or unfavorable nature of the growing season. Certainly it's ONE data point, but a 130 year old tree, cut on the grounds of my church in 1996 has a growth ring from 1988 which is MINIMAL, and comes from a "drought" type summer. I'm certain there are