Holliday et al. (2023): Systematic Misrepresentations of Younger Dryas Impact Evidence undermine the reliability of their Conclusions

Holliday et al. (2023) present a “comprehensive refutation” of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH), but in doing so, they make numerous incorrect or misleading statements about the studies they critique. Collectively, these mischaracterizations distort the scientific record and compromise the reliability of the review’s assessments. 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 portrayals deviate substantially from the source material. Across these cases, we identify recurring patterns of selective citation, omission of methodological context, and substitution of weakened or inaccurate versions of authors’ arguments for the claims actually made. Taken together, these patterns undermine the credibility of Holliday et al.’s conclusions and raise broader concerns about standards of accuracy, proportionality, and fairness in scientific critique. We argue that robust evaluation of the YDIH, or any contested hypothesis, must be grounded in a faithful representation of the primary literature and in engagement with data and methods, rather than in rhetorical dismissal.