Latest on the Younger Dryas boundary event

19 Apr 2012

In Pleistocene Coalition News 4:2 April, 2012, George Howard has a piece on the Carolina Bays and the YDB event. The Bays consist of tens of thousands of shallow, symetrical, elliptical depressions. Some have become ponds and lakes but most are just boggy or have dried out and are common to the eastern seaboard zone of the US but also occur as far west as Nebraska and Kansas. He describes how he first encountered them - as a young researcher working for a local politician who was fascinated by them. In the 1930s there were some scientists that still thought they had an origin in meteors - but they were ahead of their time. The uniformitarian consensus says they were formed by wind and water, and the consensus has prevailed, before and after the 1930s. The consensus crowd, he says, have an agenda - much greater than finding out what really caused them. In keeping with uniformitarian dogma they seem to think anyone who even thinks, yet alone voices a catastrophic origin, must automatically be dismissed - the concept is beyond their belief system. The piece then goes on to outline research into the Younger Dryas Boundary Event to which the Bays may or may not be connected. To date there have been 48 papers, talks and posters by the YDB research group and 16 by other independent researchers. There have been just 10 papers by detractors (including talks and posters) and appear to spread baseless rumours each time they open their mouths or use their keyboards. For instance, the claim that no other labs can reproduce the same findings is entirely spurious but is repeated over and over again (with obvious analogies with CAGW tactics) as well as claims the impact markers were misidentified. Nano-diamonds, it is suggested, are grapheme, and melted and quashed metallic bits are dismissed as a gentle rain of cosmic dust. Carbon spherules, it is alleged, are nothing but insect feces - which appears to get George hopping as he ends up by accusing the science press of being ignorant and dismissive of anything novel in thinking or hypothesis. One interesting point made by George Howard is that Richard Firestone, for example, may have made some initial assumptions that were based on his field of study, nuclear physics, which have proved to be unlikely. Is this why he favoured supernovae when he first appeared on the scene?