forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,23:54) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,10:47) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25) | Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.
http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf
I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002. Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates. Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.
Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.
Enjoy. |
There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf c14 |
Yes a scientist is taken to task by other scientists when he can't backup his conclusions. This shows that if there was anything wrong systematically with dating methods some scientists will be onto it straight away.
This is extremely bad for your case as it shows for science to be open to examination |
Another case in point of you seeing a "scandal" as integrity which indicates either the dishonest propaganda and/or delusional denial
|
