It seems Nye and his followers don't look to the history books.....
I guess it depends on which history books you're talking about. The history I've read says any wood ship over 300 feet long had serious issues with leakage; had to be reinforced with steel strapping; and had to constantly be pumped to keep stay afloat in the open sea.
"Incredibly, the largest ships in the fleet (called baoshan, or "treasure ships") were likely between 440 and 538 feet long by 210 feet wide. These 4-decked baoshan had an estimated displacement of 20-30,000 tons, roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the displacement of modern American aircraft carriers. Each had nine masts on its deck, rigged with square sails that could be adjusted in series to maximize efficiency in different wind conditions.
Your source is seriously out of date. All American aircraft carriers built since 1975 are over 100,000 tons.
"Junk is a type of Chinese wooden boat with a flat bottom. The largest junk ship built in the history is Zheng He's treasure ship, measured 140 meters long with 9 masts. Its anchors were recorded half ton heavy each."
A travel office? Really ! ! !
Oh yeah.... I forgot. Citing engineers on these things is an "argument from authority" fallacy. We all know tourist offices are much more likely to know the limitations of ship building than engineers.
Why are they in dispute? Because all you have given here is an argument from personal incredulity, (a logical fallacy)...
I told you why the long wood ships are in dispute. Quoting what I said before:
"The problem is hull flexure..... the bending and twisting of the hull as the ship passes through waves (or the waves pass by the ship). "
I also pointed out that was based on my research. Since the comment is based on research, it is not simply "an argument from personal incredulity." I quote again what I said before:
"My research says the Vikings never built anything over 250 feet. The Greeks never ventured into the open ocean. The size of the Chinese treasure ships is in dispute. "
Now, if you want more about that research:
Scholars disagree about the factual accuracy and correct interpretation of accounts of the treasure ships. ... Treasure ships' dimensions are debated on practical engineering grounds, with some suggesting they were as short as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. .... The modern understanding of the ships derives from empirical and theoretical knowledge of the technical limitations of wooden sailing ships, historical Chinese records and accounts from European travelers who visited China around this time. However, there is debate amongst scholars about how these records should be interpreted. ....
Some scholars argue that it is highly unlikely that Zheng He's ship was 140 metres (460 ft) in length, some estimating that it was 110–124 m (390–408 feet) long and 49–51 m (160–166 feet) wide instead  while others put them as 61–76 m (200–250 feet) in length, since in later historical periods ships approaching the extreme sizes claimed for the treasure ships (such as HMS Orlando and the schooner Wyoming) were unwieldy and visibly undulated with the waves, even with steel braces.
11. When China Ruled the Seas, Louise Levathes, p.80
13. Zheng He : An investigation into the plausibility of 450 ft (140 m) treasure ships , Sally K. Church.
14. 14Xin Yuanou: Guanyu Zheng He baochuan chidu de jishu fenxi (A Technical Analysis of the Size of Zheng He's Ships). Shanghai 2002, p.814.
(Link: http://en.wikipedia....hip#cite_ref-13 )
Then there is this.....
Not long ago, it was an oft-repeated statistic on the part of Chinese
scholars that the dimensions of He's flagships were 138.4 meters long and
56 m wide. These numbers were lowered somewhat later; for example, the
respected historian F. Mote, whom I cite in my book, and took his numbers as
authoritative, says that He's flagship was 120-5 m long and about 50 m wide
(1999). Chinese scholars have also lowered the estimates, particularly as
they started considering the practical implications of building a replica of
He's main ship for the 580th and 600th anniversaries of He's voyages (in
1985 and 2000 respectively). Ship-building experts adviced against
building a 450ft ship, saying "it seems pointless to insist that we must use
modern shipbuilding knowledge and techniques to reconstruct a ship of an
impossibly large size, spending endless amounts of money and effort on it"
(as cited in Sally Church's "The Colossal Ships of Zheng He: Image or
Reality?"). In 2001, Xin Yuanou's proposed the modest measurements of 59.1
meters in length by 14 m in width), as the actual size of the ships -- in
others words, he reduced their size to less than half of what they were
formerly thought to be. ....
as early as 1947, when the
overestimations were accepted in the main, one Chinese scholar, Guan
Jincheng, "called the size of the ships into question", and proposed instead
the figures of 62m long by 8.5 m wide.....
(Link: http://h-net.msu.edu...AEembHaVhcr81KQ )
That should be sufficient to establish there is a dispute with regard to the size of Zheng He's ships.... as I claimed.
As for the problems of long wood ships, they are well documented at http://en.wikipedia....st_wooden_ships . (Pay particular attention to ships over 300 feet long.)
Keep in mind you are now arguing against recorded history....
We also have a history with wood ships over 300 feet long, so you're arguing against recorded history too.... as well as maritime engineering. One difference is that the history I'm presenting is modern and much better documented.
Let's say your a historian in early 1400's China. Most likely, your employer is the emperor or possibly Zheng He. You're told to record the length of the ships as 440 feet. What happens if you don't?
Also keep in mind that if they were so bad why were so many made, (see first quote), and why were even more made later on.... Hmm.. Perhaps because they worked.
This is similar to when I warn students not to cheat on the final exam. As an example, I point out a student who had an "A" in English and got caught turning the "A" to a "C." The class often asks: "Gee, if he had an "A," why would he cheat." I point out that maybe he cheated on the exam because he cheated his way to the "A" in the first place.
Maybe they made a lot of them because they didn't work and it was necessary to keep replacing them. It probably wouldn't have been the first time in history a bad design was retained.... and it certainly wasn't the last.