UM-Bot Posted December 19, 2005 #1 Share Posted December 19, 2005 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. Some are 1,000 years old. View: Full Article | Source: Live Science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted December 19, 2005 #2 Share Posted December 19, 2005 How much can we really trust scientists. Latley I've been hearing alot of things where scientists miss the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnb420 Posted December 19, 2005 #3 Share Posted December 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted December 19, 2005 #4 Share Posted December 19, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecInca Posted December 20, 2005 #5 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) ^Very true aquatuas. Generally scientists wont publish their theories or work if they aren`t as sure as they can possibly be that all data is accurate. It is their reputation on the line after all! Edited December 20, 2005 by AztecInca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted December 20, 2005 #6 Share Posted December 20, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AztecInca Posted December 20, 2005 #7 Share Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) 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. Edited December 20, 2005 by AztecInca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted December 20, 2005 #8 Share Posted December 20, 2005 I didn't accuse them of anything, and I never stated anyone on this topic called me stupid for disagreeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SureFire Posted December 20, 2005 #9 Share Posted December 20, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaunZero Posted December 20, 2005 #10 Share Posted December 20, 2005 See, there it is again. Everytime I disagree with science "I have something wrong with science", or I'm out to make it look bad, lol. What gives? O_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SureFire Posted December 20, 2005 #11 Share Posted December 20, 2005 See, there it is again. Everytime I disagree with science "I have something wrong with science", or I'm out to make it look bad, lol. What gives? O_o Must just be the way it was written, no harm no foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROGER Posted December 20, 2005 #12 Share Posted December 20, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosswings Posted December 3, 2012 #13 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Of what I have seen in movies, these trees of the Amazon back in BC when dinosaurs were around, were just extremely small. These trees could be that older and growing older as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now