The alleged problem,overs only the very end of the Suigetsu data. I.e. not particularly relevant; assuming that Woody's correctly representing the data (probably a poor assumption, based on past experience) than there's still 33,000 years of correlation to be explained. And correlation with tree rings and ice cores and ...
Focusing on one item is the wrong thing to do. It's standard creationist practice, but it's still wrong. You need a meta-analysis that explains the
observed multiple correlations.
{ABE} Another reason to suspect Woody's misrepresenting is his misrepresetnations earlier in the articlee, e.g. his repetition of the Ngauruhoe and Mt. St. Helens dacite and "fossil wood" frauds.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.