Scientists used to believe the oldest trees on the planet were in North America with ages in the 5,000-year range.
Hooey, for a new discovery in Sweden has completely debunked this consensus, resulting in a total rewrite of climate history while bringing into serious question global warming theories espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his sycophant devotees.
Think green media members will be falling over themselves to report this new finding?
While you ponder, consider the evidence supplied by the British Telegraph Thursday (emphasis added):
The world's oldest tree has been found in Sweden, a tenacious spruce that first took root just after the end of the last ice age, more than 9,500 years ago.
The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region, revealing that it was much warmer at that time and the ice had disappeared earlier than thought. [...]
It had been thought that this region was still in the grip of the ice age but the tree shows it was much warmer, even than today, [Prof Leif Kullman at Umeå University] says.
“Spruces are the species that can best give us insight about climate change,” he says.
The summers 9,500 years ago were warmer than today, though there has been a rapid recent rise as a result of climate change that means modern climate is rapidly catching up.
Hmmm. So, as a result of this find, we now know that summers in Sweden were not only much warmer 9,500 years ago than the consensus view used to be, but ALSO warmer than today...even after all that awful carbon dioxide that man has released into the atmosphere in the past couple of centuries.
Yes, I'm sure media will be all over this story in the coming days...not!
*****Update: As a post facto aside, this find should also point out how irrelevant a "consensus" is as it pertains to science, for new discoveries are always debunking and challenging conventional wisdom.
Sadly, folks in the media, and climate alarmists looking to stifle debate, refuse to understand this inconvenient truth.
That said, energy and financial policies SHOULD NOT be based on supposedly consensus views of science for EXACTLY this reason, for a lot of time, money, and resources could be devoted to a "solution" to a "problem" which ends up NOT existing.