At http://cosmictusk.com/unfiltered-unsorted-surovell-holiday-et-al-in-pnas… … George Howard decribes the nature of the resistance to the Younger Dryas boundary event hypothesis and what he witnessed at the AMQA conference in 2010. Dennis Cox, in the comments, adds further interesting points – the case of an assumptive consensus versus data driven science and the fact geologists know far less thany they care to admit, about anything to do with the history of the Earth. Data that refute the summptions of the consensus is very often airbrushed away, or archived in a dark room. The consensus view is elevated to unquestioned and repeated dogma. Meanwhile, the Russians have uncovered an impact crater in the far north of Siberia and it is bursting with diamonds – big ones, not tiny nano-diamonds. They are just waiting to be plucked. Another commenter at Cosmic Tusk points out that most geologists thought the andesite found in drill cores at Chicxulub was evidence of volcanism, not of impact. The consensus view was that only volcanism could melt the rocks of the Earth and produce andesite. Another prodessor of Earth Sciences explained explosive volcanism by a sudden release of volatiles dissolved in Earth's mantle – ignoring impact theory.
At http://phys.org/print267345212.html … we get to see how the consensus works. The research begins with the assumption sea levels rose at the end of the Ice Age, and again, at 6200BC, as a result of a melt water pulse – or melting ice sheets. The paper, in Nature (Sept 2012) was done by computer simulation rather than from observations and were desigbined to show how ice sheets today might collapse as a result of CAGW. Naturally, the results were eddifying – for them. A simulation is worse than useless if it doesn't programme in all the possibilities, and in this instance, they did not.