troppo wrote:
jg wrote in
ond.com:

Peter Webb wrote:
............

These are mostly laboratory experiments in controlled environments;
the rest are based on the fossil record. How could any result be due
to supposed anthropogenic warming when they were (a) in a controlled
environment (and hence not exposed to GW at all) or (b) were derived
from fossil records that pre-date AGW?


You seem to be ignoring all the results that say Recent. Do you think
they are made up?


The Nature PDF link is to the sources section, and a whole basket-load of
comparisons between the size of something, and some other measure, eg
drought. Even if the size measurements are accurate and involve
statistically significant sampling, this is still junk. What "climate
change" data are size changes being correlated with? Could be anything.

Might be reasonable to assume cause and effect where "drought" is
concerned. Most people would agree with that wouldn't they? Don't think it
requires a research grant. On the other hand, a few years ago
"researchers" discovered aspirin promotes longevity in plants, and domestic
dogs are capable of jealosy, so maybe we shouldn't be surprised.

CO2 would be absent because it is well known that additional CO2 promotes
plant growth - that's why it is pumped into greenhouses (real, not
imaginary ones).

Anyone can do the froggy picture. I have a picture of a big green tree
frog, used to hang round the house, now there are only smaller ones. Shock
horror? Nah - the big fella has turned up again ...


So they waited for a drought to go out and measure growth rings on
Alaskan Spruce trees, but hasn't more CO2 been increasing between 1908
and 1996?

Just how can CO2 be excluded from comparative growth measurements?