Son of Mulder.
Hello stranger. One needs to ask oneself "Is dendrochronology a science yet, or just a study occupation?".
Any 'science' can be 'replicated' by anyone that accurately follows the scientific instructions with the data. Thus, science expects the data to be freely available together with the method etc., but if the 'science' can't be 'replicated' then it just isn't 'science'! Similarly, if you have to make payment for details to enable a 'replication', it isn't 'science', it's 'business'!
As an engineer, this is my expectation from science! It's also the reason that governments sponsor science projects and engineers have to look for sponsorship elsewhere (ever seen "The Dragon's Den"?).
Winge over. Yes, I've been following this on CA and elsewhere, but the 'blogosphere' has made up it's own mind on it. There is so much vehemence out there that I feel is unwarranted. What it needs is for dendrochronology to tighten up it's act if it wants to be recognised as a science. Change it's methodology and archive data for free access!
Science now has "egg on it's face" because it accepted a non-science subject as 'science'. Though, this is only politics and policy implementation. Did you have a science point to make for discussion?
Best regards, suricat.