Exploring abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history

Premature rejection in science: The case of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis

James Lawrence Powell publishes masterful takedown of the YD impact deniers

Dr. James Powell published an extraordinary review paper this week revealing and carefully detailing the premature (and pathological imho) rejection of the YDIH. When combined with Martin Sweatman’s work from earlier this year, the whole sorry story of the unprofessional knee jerk opposition to the theory has finally been told.

And what a wonderful and welcome documentarian we have in Powell. While “eminent” is an overused compliment for scientists, here the word is appropriate. Unlike the critics, James Lawrence Powell is not a press release scientist:

From Simon Shuster:

James Lawrence Powell graduated from Berea College with a degree in geology. He earned a PhD in geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College. He taught geology at Oberlin College for over twenty years and served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed him to the National Science Board, where he served for twelve years. Asteroid 1987 SH7 is named for him. In 2015, he was elected a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).

The poorly conceived and overtly hostile attacks on the YDIH by Bos and Company, particularly early on, were painful to the Tusk and others. The work of deniers Nicholas Pinter, Scott Ishman and Mark “The Bos” Boslough, et al., seemed to anyone familiar with the evidence to be the work of cheap shot artists, out to make their name by “debunking” papers, which they trusted would never be read.

And it worked fabulously — but thankfully not permanently.

In the end, as documented by Powell, their citations were crap, their objections were shallow and unsupported by data, and the tone and style of the publications were beneath the dignity of true scientists writing in journals.

A “Requiem” for a hypothesis authored by a member of the National Academy Sciences? Really??

One would hope and expect that in the internet age, with its online journals, instant communication, and vastly improved scientific methods and instrumentation, premature rejection would be a thing of the past. The reaction to the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH), introduced in 2007, shows that this assumption is incorrect.5 Within months of its appearance, two authors6 called the hypothesis a “Frankenstein Monster” and in 2011, the same two plus others7 compared it to UFOs and other examples of “pathological science” and wrote its “requiem.” Yet after a comprehensive review of the literature in 2021, Sweatman8 concluded: “Probably, with the YD impact event essentially confirmed, the YD impact hypothesis should now be called a ‘theory’.” The question this article seeks to answer is how scientists can so thoroughly reject a hypothesis, even write its requiem, only to have it emerge in little more than a decade strengthened and deserving of possible promotion to the status of theory.

It has taken more than a decade for legitimate scientists like Powell and Sweatman to discover the travesty, and reveal the damage to responsible inquiry done by these posers. But this work is now done — and done well. Enjoy.

Bonus lecture:

Link to Powell’s book:

7 Responses

  1. Seriously, the immediate reflexive rejection of any challenge to the prevailing “received wisdom” of the anointed priesthood is among the most rigidly consistent defining features of documented human history.

    It seems to be a feature-not-a-bug in our individual AND collective programming, that most of us — having distilled our experience to some general approximation of how the world works — afterward regard that model as the thing itself — Kant’s “Ding an sich.”
    We take the Map as the Territory…
    The internalized mental model is then elevated to a status of unchallengeability unless and until some evidence arises that dramatically overthrows our assumed understanding of things.

    Until that persuasive avalanche occurs, anyone disputing the Sanhedrin/Council of the Wise is customarily treated as mistaken, unreliable, untrustworthy, irresponsible, dangerous, criminal.

    I’m guessing that’s our “lizard brain” nudging us toward immediate and unhesitating response to threats and challenges, lest we be shouldered aside by some other competitor with most of its data processing going on in a slight thickening of the spinal chord nestled in the pelvic region.

    Pretty sure that accounts for most of my decisions.

    NOT defending this inflexibility; just tryina make sense of it.

  2. Dr. Powell is the author of a great book detailing the History of Science and how hard it has been to get things right across the last 200 years of “progress”. The title is “Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth”. It is a great read, and I recommend it highly.
    Why is this scenario repeated yet again? I feel it is because texts like Powell’s (both the current one and the one I am referencing) along with the great work of Thomas Kuhn, are despised by the academics. So despised, they refuse to teach the lessons learned. Academics would have you believe all science is linear, building on the shoulders of the revered forefathers, rather than upon their funerals. Lots of revisionist history.
    I am going to push some buttons of my own with a GSA paper in the next few weeks. Hang on!

  3. I am enjoying the article. Thanks for posting. I recently read an interesting article about some Mega Fauna species that remained alive for much longer than was previously shown in the bone records. The study used DNA records in Yukon soil I believe. It is interesting to see data arriving from multiple methods. Data is Data. Bring it on. See https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/mcmaster-ancient-dna-centre/news/collapse-of-the-mammoth-steppe-in-central-yukon-as-revealed-by-ancient-environmental-dna

  4. Unfortunately,the meteorite list archive was lost. Thus no one except for those who were on it know that I was three years ahead of Firestone.

    My current guess is that the Carolina Bays date from roughly 13,000 BCE, the first of the two Holocene Start Impact Events. If the past is any indication, this will be common knowledge abotu 2025.

  5. Very strange that Powell has a problem with countering “man made global warming” – at around 7min.
    The very idea of a YDIH bounces the CO2 mantra out into orbit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe for Updates

Tax deductible donations to the Comet Research Group can be made here