My bottom line point is that the paper does not say there were major drought events in the past.

But it does say there were major events in the past.

The entire study was about recording ring markings that SHOW EVENTS in the past. It's pretty hard to assume an event may have happened with no evidence to support it.

It's pretty clear then even when quoted, you deny that's what it means.

I guess the report saying "This ring mark shows drought around 500 years ago" is not showing an event?

Go read the report. You seem like you have only read a tabloid article.

Here let me quote you the report you never read.

Scientists reconstructed the Mediterranean’s drought history by studying tree rings as part of an effort to understand the region’s climate and what shifts water to or from the area. Thin rings indicate dry years while thick rings show years when water was plentiful. In addition to identifying the driest years, the science team discovered patterns in the geographic distribution of droughts that provides a "fingerprint" for identifying the underlying causes. 

Holy shit, they identified droughts... but you said "the paper does not say there were drought events in the past."

I'll take the reports words over yours any day.

I think you are even too stupid to be a troll.

Last bit:

Cook and his colleagues used the tree-ring record called the Old World Drought Atlas to better understand how frequently and how severe Mediterranean droughts have been in the past. 

That's can't be right, you said they were no drought events in the past, so wtf were they recording?

Goodbye. You lose.