Randall Carlson on younger dryas: what the evidence says · JRE #961
SUBJECT: YOUNGER DRYAS
Not a true/false call. Every claim is logged with its sources; read the exhibits below.
there could have been no possibility of anything like a comet impact 12,800 years ago, and that these 63 or 65 scientists who are proposing that are just completely wrong
What the evidence says 01 / RECORD
Randall Carlson asserted that a specific group of "63 or 65 scientists" back the Younger Dryas comet-impact hypothesis (YDIH) and that the 2011 Pinter et al. "Requiem" critique rejecting it has been thoroughly refuted. No traceable peer-reviewed source enumerates a tally of 63 or 65 scientists as supporters of the hypothesis, so the figure is not independently verifiable. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis remains a minority, contested position: a 2013 PNAS physics-based rebuttal (Boslough et al.) found the proposed impact/airburst mechanisms inconsistent with known comet fragmentation physics, showing the underlying science remained actively disputed well after 2011, not settled in the hypothesis's favor. A pro-YDIH 2022 review (Powell) argues the original 2011 rejection was premature and cites replicated markers at multiple sites, which shows the dispute is genuinely ongoing, but it does not establish that mainstream science has reversed course or that a specific, countable bloc of "63 or 65" scientists exists. Overall, the claim that the Requiem paper's rejection has been "completely" overturned by a defined, countable group of scientists overstates what the cited sources show about an unsettled scientific dispute.