Trees in the Amazon grow slower and are older than scientists thought, a discovery that has implications for computer models of climate change. Up to half of all trees greater than 4 inches (10 centimeters) in diameter in Amazon tropical forests are more than 300 years old, the study found.
There is some fiction in your truth, and some truth in your fiction. To know the truth, you must risk everything.
Posted 19 December 2005 - 06:21 PM
I dont care if it is true or not, it will not do any harm either way. I think its good scientists have said this because maybe they will stop cutting down rainforest's. Global warming is quickly taking effect.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes
Now things are really what they seem
No, this is no bad dream
How much can we really trust scientists. Latley I've been hearing alot of things where scientists miss the mark.
You should trust scientists a bit more. They have a habit of checking their work over several time themselves, and then publishing so that other scientists can look it over. All this double-checking results in the discovery of errors such as these.
If all scientists did was look at things once, we would never progress. I sincerely hope you do not believe that scientists have ever claimed to be infallible.
But that's what I'm saying. It's good if they double check, but for so long any would be considered stupid if they said "these trees are actualy 1,000 years old" and now they found out they were wrong. I just don't like the idea that people are so looked down on when disagreeing with scientists as if science is the "know it all" of everything.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" ~ George Carlin Are you a cynic?
All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.
Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:26 AM
Well firstly no one was having a go at you for disagreeing with the scientists. If you wish to disagree with them go ahead. Debate on any subject is more than welcome around here.
You weren`t disagreeing you were accussing them of being untrustworthy which is why some of us said something. I didn`t agree with your point of view as calling them untrustworthy seemed to be going to far in my opinion. Scientists may make mistakes or get something wrong as we all do but it doesn`t make them untrustworthy.
It is true that they "miss the mark" often but just like the others said, it's been checked and checked again, until they can finally come to something they can agree on. Scientists have been wrong on everything at least once, don't know if anyone remembers the big debate on the "Age of the Earth" a while back. Old news, but ya know.
It did sound as if you had something held against scientists being wrong from time to time, but we all have our thing.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Sticks and stone didnt break my bone,
But old age is starting to Hurt me!
Posted 20 December 2005 - 10:39 PM
Scientists and researchers depend on accurate facts in order to do their jobs. The age of the trees of the rain forest were estimated using the size of trees in other parts of the world. This was an error that has been corrected by carbon dating. I will be interested in seeing if follow up testing confirms this data, so that computer climatic programs may be updated.
The world can't end in 2012, I have a yogurt that expires in 2013.