jg wrote in
ond.com:

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?

Numerous studies show an increase in biomass in recent years, but I don't
see any of these in this list. Conclusion is that it's cherry-picking.

Just how can CO2 be excluded from comparative growth measurements?

Good question. I recently finished sawing up +/- 20 tonnes of cyclone-
damaged 20 year growth of timber. Most recent rings are wider. Natural
growth, eg no additional nutrients, no major fluctuations in precipitation
over the period, etc. Has to be CO2 I reckon.