Holliday et al. (2023) present a “comprehensive refutation” of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH), but in doing so make numerous incorrect or misleading statements about the studies they critique. Collectively, these mischaracterizations distort the scientific record and compromise the reliability of the reviewers’ assessment. In multiple cases, their review omits key caveats, exaggerates alleged weaknesses, or presents prior YDIH studies out of context, giving readers an inaccurate impression of the claims, methods, and evidentiary strength of the original work. For clarity and brevity, we examine representative examples drawn from six influential YDIH publications discussed by Holliday et al.: Firestone et al. (2007), LeCompte et al. (2012), Kennett et al. (2015), Moore et al. (2017), Wolbach et al. (2018), and Moore et al. (2019), and demonstrate how Holliday et al.’s portrayal deviates substantially from the source material. Across each case, we identify recurring patterns of selective citation, the omission of methodological context, and the substitution of weakened or inaccurate arguments for those supporting the YDIH. Taken together, these patterns undermine the reliability of Holliday et al.’s assessment and raise broader concerns about the standards of accuracy, proportionality, and fairness in scientific critique. Here, we argue that a robust evaluation of the YDIH, or any contested hypothesis, must be grounded in a faithful representation of the primary literature, as well as a proper engagement with the published data and methods, rather than simple rhetorical dismissal.
Moore et al. (Thu,) studied this question.