Rejection of Holliday et al.'s alleged refutation of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis

Abstract

We reject the claim of Holliday et al. (2023) that they have “comprehensively refuted” the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (YDIH). Scores of peer-reviewed articles in dozens of peer-reviewed journals from hundreds of researchers, many of whom were not members of the core research team of Firestone et al. (2007), have corroborated the YDIH and replicated the key evidence dozens of times (Powell, 2022; Sweatman, 2021). Refuting a hypothesis that is so well established should require compelling new evidence and a plausible alternative process. Holiday et al. (2023) offer neither but, instead, question the peer-reviewed evidence supporting the hypothesis. Many of their arguments are faulty and were already rebutted in earlier reviews. The remaining differences in interpretation are part and parcel of science and do not lend themselves to the refutation—that is, the falsification—of an active hypothesis. Words alone cannot do that, not even the 96,000 words of Holiday et al. (2023). Only evidence can.