Alright Creationist. The whole portion of this post is lifted word for word (some rearranging of sentences and removal of statements like "As a tree physiologist...) from an article by Don Batten at AiG:
Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology
| Answers in Genesis
That is, of course, unless you are Don Batten and then I apologize.
That being said, you might want to actually read the article by Yamaguchi yourself and not trust what Batten says that it says. He is not known for honesty. The article is available here:
Tree-Ring Bulletin & Tree-Ring Research
I had to laugh when I read that article and found that C-14 is not mentioned once. The article is showing how error can arise in the statistical analysis of dendrochronology when comparing
floating samples (samples lacking known chronologies before and after). The author talks about how to recognize and prevent this when using statistical software on time series data. The dates rejected by the statistical analysis were not rejected because they disagreed with carbon 14 dating, they were rejected because they (in one sample out of 23) gave a date of death as being between 2078 and 2100 AD. Another creotortionist trick by taking a positive find in science and making it sound like a flaw. How many times will these lies have to pointed out before creationists start questioning their sources?
"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder