Wow, sad. Nobody here has even tried to answer this question. It only seems to have served as a rallying call for like-minded "skeptics".
For one, tree-ring dating is not an absolute science. Not all trees exclusively form 1 ring per year - especially in drought periods. This has been demonstrated by scientists before - even in the lab.
So the real question is - by what method was the dating for that tree done?
And indeed, the report says radiocarbon dating was used. Okay. So what problems does that rise?
Well, none really - at least to me. Not even the hardest core creationists I know of are fixed on 6,000 years. Actually, for years, the resources I have read have given a loose 6,000-10,000 years age. Archbishop Usher's amazing chronology is based on 6,000 years, but conventional wisdom can still fit everything in 10,000 year time frame.
So - knock your straw man down!