carbon 14 is the biggest science scam next to global warming. its all based on the assumption that the carbon level was 14 2 thousand years ago and we know that is not true. its not even 14 now its like 16 or 17 yet these so called scientist still try to pawn this crap on us
What you wrote is not true.
Carbon-14 is an isotope of regular Carbon, which is Carbon-12.
Carbon-14 is a little radioactive (and scarce) and primarily the product of various rays as they run through the atmosphere and collide with nitrogen. Nitrogen is 78 per cent of the atmosphere, and the collisions (not all, some) produce Carbon-14 from Nitrogen-14.
Carbon-14 has a steady decay rate, and turns back into Nitrogen-14. After about 45,000 years C14 vanishes from organic samples formerly containing C14, leaving only C12 (and a trace of the other stable isotope, C13 which makes up about 1 per cent of the Earth’s known carbon supply).
By measuring the ratio of C12 to C14 — in an organic sample, nothing else — the time between the accumulation of the C14 by the formerly living thing (wood from a tree, sometimes ash from combusted materials, etc) and the present (actually 1950, when the technique was pioneered) can be closely estimated, with a pretty good idea of the margin of error.
One of the assumptions underlying radiocarbon dating is that the rate of C14 formation and accumulation remains basically steady. That’s been undermined by tree ring dendrochronology (using a series of tree rings, each RC dated, to build up a continuous series of dates starting with current rings and going back through overlapping samples into trees that died centuries or millennia ago), as well as by other proxy data (coral reefs accumulate C14 and build up in layers that can be discerned). Dendrochronology is itself less than 100 per cent trustworthy because of differing growth rates (i.e., not all trees add rings during a drought, and not all trees in the same general area experience the same droughts) and (in my view) meddling by those who think the calibrated dates should use existing biases as baselines.