Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

"All reconstructions extend to 1500 C.E., thus avoiding the use of sparsely replicated information from chronologies with few trees in the early years of their stacks."

 

I think he's being a bit dramatic here. The authors are just showing yet another variable that shows exceptional drought in the region. It's not even an article, just a one-page "opinion & comment" piece, which we would have known had he linked to the original source. Is that even peer-reviewed? Since he's comfortable assuming fraudulent intent, I'm going to go ahead and say that he neglected to link to the source to cover his ass.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.