Taimyr is one of the sites in Esper et al . It does not make a material contribution to any hockey stick-ness in Esper. The authors have some very interesting things to say about AGW which I’ll post up in a day or two. For now, I want to post up the following graph, which is of great methodological interest to me. Using one site age curve is sweeping the field in dendroclimatic studies. While the various authors genuflect towards the need for homogeneity, there is precious little evidence in their articles of operational procedures to ensure it.
A big and obvious difference and potential source of bias is that some of the newer reconstructions are being done by stitching together cores from live trees and cores from dead trees. Here’s a remarkable graphic from Naurzbaev et al 
Original Caption: Figure 2 The two “Åregional’ age curves (1) obtained for cores and stem wood samples taken at a height of 0.5–1.0 m above ground and (2) as derived from discs of dead trees where the lower part of the stem is preserved. An offset in the curves is required to account for the sampling height bias and to produce a single valid standardization reference curve.
The take-home message to me from this graphic is that the usual negative-exponential age-standardization curve will penalize subfossil samples in their early portion and make the chronologies seem colder than they really are.
Reference: Mukhtar M. Naurzbaev, Eugene A. Vaganov, Olga V. Sidorova and Fritz H. Schweingruber, 2002. Summer temperatures in eastern Taimyr inferred from a 2427-year late-Holocene tree-ring chronology and earlier floating series, The Holocene 12(6), 727–736