As an IPCC reviewer, IWhat an odd choice of words. "Inappropriate" - not "incorrect", not "inaccurate", not "unsupported", just "inappropriate".
Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading. (Reviewer’s comment ID #: 309-18)]
In response, IPCC section authors said:
Rejected – though note ‘divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series.
Perhaps it's a "scientific" faux pas to display incongruent data?
Lysenko had it so much easier.