New paper published: Rejection of Holliday et al.'s Alleged Refutation of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis
Another paper that rejects Holliday et al.'s (2023; HEA) Gish gallop has been accepted for publication in Earth Science Reviews, the journal that published HEA. Because of the word limit imposed by ESR on our rebuttal, we could publish only a summary paper that points out only the major errors in each section of Holliday et al. (2023). We sought other journals but the editors refused our request to publish our response in their journals, stating that ESR is the appropriate vehicle. Given this limitation, we had little option but to publish a summary in ESR with the extended details in Airbursts and Cratering Impacts (see the previous blog post ). So the longer paper in ACI should be seen as an extension of the summary paper in ESR. Note that, originally, ESR limited our response to 3000 words, which is clearly inadequate when rebutting an article of over 96,000 words! After appeal, ESR relented by allowing a word length limit of 6000 words. Ultimately, we were allowed to publish a