YDB scepticism

29 Mar 2020

Anthony's blog is sceptical of global warming and the whole climate change merry go round but it is not necessarily sceptical of the other sciences, which I find somewhat strange. The link below is to a post by a mainstream geologist who works in the oil industry. Mainstream geology is his bread and butter. He is consistently sceptical of the Younger Dryas Boundary event hypothesis - almost to an obsession. In doing so he has drawn a number of mainstream commenters to support him - and it would seem not many of them have kept abreadst of the development of the YDB over the last several years. One even wonders if any of them have read the papers published on the subject (apart from what they read in the media) as they don't appear to have much of a clue (yet feel obliged to comment). They are, it seems to me, behaving in precisely the same way as advocates of the climate  change meme - without properly researching the subject before going hyper. Go to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/28/why-the-recently-discovered-hiawa... .... One can see why the author, employed by the oil industry, is not too fond of climate change and the rush to renewables. His well paid job might be disappearing down the tubes if Trump loses out at the next election. However, he has  also written several articles on the Younger Dryas Boundary event and still insists the hypothesis requires an impact crater. It hasn't helped much in that a couple of the YDB team have also fixated on a crater and have even suggested the recently discovered Hiawatha crater in Greenland may fit the bill - when in all likelihood it will be found to be much older. As the geologist notes, YDB sites have been found across a fair chunk of the world, not only in North America and South America but in Europe and the Near East - and most recently in Syria. The crater is therefore something of a red herring as it is clear a single crater is not what is required to make sense of what happened. Only the Clube and Napier scenario can do that - and the idea that earth passed through a dense stream of rocks and debris from the passage of a large comet through the inner solar system, shedding its load as it rounded the Sun. Such streams are closely packed to begin with but over time dissipate into well spread out meteor trails that were less destructive as earth can dodge most of the objects that remained in orbit. Hence, what is required to explain the Younger Dryas event (as well as the Older and Oldest dryas events, and the 6200BC event) is a meteor stream or streams. When earth bisected a stream which was dense (with some large pieces of rock) it would have caused multiple Tunguska like events - spread across a large area of the globe (which the evidence currently seems to show).

There has opened up a chasm between stalwart mainstream scientists (and media pundits) and the YDB team (and those prepared to at least read the subject up). It is the comments that are most pungent. Anybody even suggesting the YDB team might be worth checking out are pounced upon by what one can only call anxious people unable to change their minds (for reasons they only know). Indeed, one wonders jujst how sceptical they are of climate change, and why. I had researched climate and related subjects for a considerable period of time prior to when the global warming drama was set in motion - using as sources such people as HH Lamb and the Korean Chosun Annals etc. The idea was to seek out anomalies that might be related to catastrophism rather than specifically climate itself (but climate switches if they occurred suddenly are one of the keys to changes in the environment). Hence, I had a pretty good idea of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed - and so did lots of other people too. Hence, when the hockey stick first reared its head it was obvious to a lot of people that it must be wrong as it contradicted everything that had gone previously. In other words, sceptics were born immediately as they had grown up with the warm and the cool periods, from university onwards, and the hockey still was deemed corrupt (which was subsequently discovered by using statistic analysis). In other words, people that proclaim to be sceptics of climate change, if a bit on the older side, are just staying faithful to what they had learned as younger people and were loathe to set it aside, much as the commenters (and the geologist) are loathe to set aside the mainstream uniformitarian version of the geological past, as that is what they have been schooled, penetrating deep into their minds. In other words the sceptics are not really sceptics as they are shy of ditching what they have been taught - and have digested over the years. This is probably why the climate change fraternity think that a cull of old people during the current corona virus outbreak may get rid of a lot of the resistance. Younger people that have been schooled to think in terms of climate change as some kind of disaster for the world will not have that resistance - and they may be right. What does it say about the human brain?