Examination of the Younger Dryas

Martin Sweatman has produced a series of videos examining many of the papers that have been published regarding the Younger Dryas events, which I have often discussed. This is the first in the series, of which there are presently six, IIRC.[a seventh was published on Jan. 21]

If you are interested in understanding better this pivotal time in human development, as am I, I cannot more strongly recommend having a look at these videos, which cogently, factually, and carefully examine the published research exploring what began the Younger Dryas.

Edit: I have just rewatched all six videos, and thought to comment a bit more than I have. Sweatman is very rigorous in his approach to the presented data. If he isn't convinced something is diagnostic of the comet impact hypothesis, such as carbon spherules, he discards it as evidentiary. In fact, he discards the bulk of data supporting the hypothesis. For example, in diagnosing the flu, doctors are often presented with fever as a symptom. While flu often causes fevers, so do many other diseases, and Sweatman would discard fever as diagnostic in his rigorous approach to diagnostic evidence.

Only after meticulous research establishes that spherules are indeed strongly correlated with impactors does he later relent and concede they may provide corroborative evidence.

However, data that is diagnostic and unable to be dismissed remains probative, and strongly indicates the hypothesis is correct. This is a very good lesson in how science is done properly. He also discusses data collection, selection, and measurement accuracy, which are all of critical import, as you will see as he discusses how flaws in these things lead researchers to erroneous conclusions, and forces him to discount those conclusions, or discard the papers themselves entirely as too flawed.

He is very gentle in his criticisms and rejections of papers and erroneous conclusions, certainly erring on the side of caution rather than harshly accusing scientists of deliberately misrepresenting data. He even disparages rebuttals that focus on implications and character assassination rather than simply discussing the data.

He also discusses bias, and how researchers gain positions of prominence in their fields. Bias is a natural feature people exhibit, and science is highly susceptible to it, because of the rigor necessary to confirm hypotheses, particularly of research which disrupts prior theories.

Researchers are paid. The mechanisms through which they are assigned funding generally are based on their research. Scientists that do research that compellingly develops theories are more strongly financially rewarded than those doing less famous or probative research. When new evidence or theories challenge prior theories, funding of research - and researchers - moves.

This creates strong incentives for researchers that have dominated a field to reject or disprove such disruption. He shows that researchers that have competing theories challenged by the comet impact hypothesis reveal bias, cherry pick data, subtly compromise measurement and collection methodologies, and make insuperable conclusions to refute the evidence disrupting their field - and income.

For folks that find science publishing increasingly politicized and featuring bias, these are great examples of what to look for in order to identify such bias with high confidence.

Sweatman does good science, and if you want to do that too, these videos are a good playbook and guide.