Rejection of Holliday et al.'s comprehensive Gish gallop of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis
Image from O'Keefe et al. (2023). Overall Summary In previous blog posts I critiqued several sections of Holliday et al.'s (2023) review of the YDIH, highlighting its many errors. No refutation arguments were encountered at all. In fact, the main disagreements all seem to concern matters of interpretation, for example radiocarbon evidence. This is normal in science, and not a reason to claim "refutation". Here I list the major errors encountered only in some of the sections of Holliday et al. I reviewed in this blog. Many of these points were made already by YDIH proponents in earlier papers, so it baffles me that they have been ignored by Holliday et al.. The remainder of Holliday et al. contains many more errors than in this list. 1. Holliday et al. frequently avoid addressing valid tests of the YDIH by falsely claiming such tests represent circular reasoning. If valid tests like these are routinely rejected, then their viewpoint becomes a self-fulfilling proph