Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:47) | 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 |
baaahahahahaha
this is the lamest bullshit you have said on this thread, yet
how the fuck can you even pretend that has fuckall to do with anything, oh that's right you are aetheistocyst
-------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|