[Raycpa]

I personally think he should stop digging his hole:

The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

This “divergence” is well known in the tree-ring literature and “trick” did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather “a convenient way of achieving something”, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.

[Shermy]

He acknowledges prior cyclical temperature rises, but says the recent one cannot be accounted for in the sun...so it must be human!

Funny, he also admits temperatures haven’t risen in the past decade..so what caused that? Doesn’t say.

[expatpat]

Bravo Sierra. If the tree rings didn’t give the ‘correct’ temperature indication during the 1960-2000 period, when instrumental measurements were available, what justification is there for using them as thermometers before 1960? The tree rings in question are probably better rainfall gages than thermometers.

[Carry_Okie]

The phrase ‘hide the decline’ was shorthand for providing a composite representation of long-term temperature changes made up of recent instrumental data and earlier tree-ring based evidence, where it was absolutely necessary to remove the incorrect impression given by the tree rings that temperatures between about 1960 and 1999 (when the email was written) were not rising, as our instrumental data clearly showed they were.

IOW tree rings do not denote a reliable temperature record because growth variation is influenced by multiple variables.

That confounded nature again!

[marktwain]

“This “divergence” is well known in the tree-ring literature and “trick” did not refer to any intention to deceive - but rather “a convenient way of achieving something”, in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent, more reliable instrumental record.”

Omitting the latter part of the tree ring record is clearly an intent to deceive the public. The divergence is a well known problem that discredits the accuracy of the tree ring validation.