This comet theory is not false nor is it"disproved" by this followup study ( especially where another study did find markers in the YD zone)-- It says that the correlation has not been found( in this study). In the body of the formal study it says most of the sites lie outside or are un-dateable for one reason or another-- the YD window in THIS Study. It doesn't address other studies which have found differently.
Even when one reads the abstracts, they admit that extraterrestrial matter has been found they just side step that was found within the YD band at some sites or say that they can't reliably date the site.
The two consortiums: the Pros and Cons are very antagonistic and it gets down to research grants, aberrant personalities and egos over science. The Cons got a grant to go gather samples using location data given them by the Pros. This is the way science is supposed to work: reproducible findings. The Pros however found major holes in the execution of the research plan.
There are challenges to methodology and competency, errors in collection and much gnashing of teeth on both sides. When the data started emerging showing an absence of markers the Pros looked deeper into the collection procedures and controls to insure sample integrity. When the Pros started rechecking the Cons fieldwork (after the field work fund was out of money aka squandered) finding that the Cons had collected from the wrong levels owing to inexperienced students, lack of supervision and commingling some samples. For Example, I think they even found that instead of digging down to a YD dated level and taking the sample, cores were taken down through all levels and the students "guessed" as to what was deep enough. This resulted in getting back to the lab after chance of correcting the error. So they dated the core using that date in the study--not using a sample dated from the YD.
Surprise! They didn't find markers in the samples they quasi-randomly collected. They also found markers in sediment out wash planes but said they couldn't date those samples reliably--fair enough but, they bury that in the body of the paper and side step it in the abstract. This seems intellectually dishonest; was it driven by the vicious research competition in grant seeking process? Do grants only flow if the grantor needs a certain result and so it is awarded to the wink wink researcher most likely to design a plan ensured to reach the forgone result? I digress some but this whole grant was supposed to be collaborative until the Pros started showing major variations from the collecting process--AFAIK
So back to the research, the Pros took these issues back to the Cons and the Cons, watching their research go down in flames, stopped the Pros from reviewing the rest of the samples and never addressed the glitches--even when the Pros went back to the sites and retrieved samples and took them to the Cons showing the markers in the YD. The Cons refused to address them because it was not "material the cons collected" and they had no intentions of a "do over" else the research could run out of money, the results never published and the two researchers would have a black mark and see greater difficulty n getting future grants.--But that is just my take.
Without taking sides, I think science was dis-served by the research grant process and the personalities on both sides putting ego before accuracy. I believe the makers are there for one or several events. It can be proved that a large cometary body did hit likely over Eastern North America. All this much hyped study says is that in the samples the Cons collected, they can't correlate a comet strike with the YD start. Even the science writer's editor falls down in one of the articles I read when they let the misstated date of 128,000 vs 12,800 calendar years bp go to publication.
The more I read from these "science" writers of today, the more I suspect that the editors don't have the background to be able to adequately verify what their writers are writing is accurate. The more questionable studies which get published shows a breakdown in the peer review process--but that is well known and ongoing.
All that will be remembered is the headline and the masses will conclude that the science is settled. I don't know what the cause of the YD cascade was--a comet seems most likely, but knowing some of the background of this particular study which I think lasted over 3 years of collecting, I wanted to share some of the "onion's previous layers--you know how you peel one layer and it looks like A and then you get to the next layer and it looks like B and the next layer C and so on. What you see in the articles rounding the net is a different critter than I saw in development--night and day different.
Eman
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment