Making reference and citation to conclusions that present a challenge to your position is certainly a difficult and personal experience. Here at the Tusk, for instance, it always pains us a bit to post the work of YDB critics. But we do so because it maintains our intellectual integrity to present both sides of the story. To do less, like Boslough — a funded scientist publishing in the literature regarding a controversial subject — is simply detestable.
Mendacious presentations of his type are telling. Authors who do not have the courage to confront their critics with their critic’s words, but rather cherry pick (at best) what they care to share of the other side, are intellectually worthless — and particularly so in science. Unfortunately, once you have reached Action Figure status concern for the integrity of your argument must become secondary to the attention you can manage to bring to yourself.
From LeCompte et al, 2012:
Comparison of Protocols Used by Surovell et al. and Firestone et al.
Surovell et al. purportedly used the same protocol as Firestone et al. yet were unable to find a single spherule in YDB sediments at three previously reported sites. They concluded that the “discrepancy between the two studies is particularly troublesome.” Our investigation reveals the abundant presence of YDB spherules at all three widely separated sites, consistent with the results by Firestone et al. Because of this difference we now examine the methodology of Surovell et al. who reported their methods in detail. Comparing the methodology of each, we find Surovell et al. deviated substantially in several critical aspects, and we suggest that this departure resulted in their finding no YDB spherules at these three sites. A summary comparison of the three protocols is in SI Appendix, Table S4.
**Upon restoring the link to the original 2007 protocols above, I was unable to find the document, but have provided 2011 version of protocols in the meantime – Marc**