The value of the Nobels has been further reduced by the UN Inspector getting it - one reason I won't accept one offered to me.
Carbon dating is fine, but its not accurate with small dating margins, particularly it is askew with archeology and 'writings' datings:
Reliability of Carbon Dating
Bristlecone Pine Trees
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c2
From the dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees from the western U.S., a correction curve for the carbon dating over the range back to 5000 BC has been developed. Trees dated at 4000 BC show the maximum deviation of between 600 and 700 years too young by carbon dating.
Glacier Measurements
Prior to carbon dating methods, the age of sediments deposited by the last ice age was surmised to be about 25000 years. "Radiocarbon dates of a layer of peat beneath the glacial sediments provided an age of only 11,400 years."
These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin
Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.