George Howard is a co-author of the original 2007 Younger Dryas Cosmic Impact Hypothesis peer reviewed paper and has been involved in the scientific work surrounding both the Younger Dryas and the Carolina Bays for many years. He runs the excellent website https://cosmictusk.com, and you can find him on Twitter at @cosmictusk.
I’ve known who George is for several years, and I was excited to get the chance to meet him and talk for a while. We discuss the weight of evidence for the Impact Hypothesis and the news (or lack of it) about some of the remarkable discoveries and new papers that have come out in the last 12 months.
We talk about the Carolina Bays, and George shares an interesting new discovery,shortly to be a scientific paper, that gives new meaning to the literal destruction of Sodom in Genesis!
Huge thanks to George for being so generous with his time!
I really wish both Ben and George Howard could look into the actual science of contemporary climate change instead of throwing it away with such apparent callous. It is not like there’s a need for tribalism or extremist “either-or” here. Both the Comet Impact Hypothesis of the Younger Dryas, and contemporary anthropogenic climate change can be real simultaneously. These do not compete in any way or form. To create this sense of ultimatum between them is both reckless and irresponsible.
Honestly, with the sheer number of highly opinionated logical fallacies being employed by Howard, it felt like he was preaching to a particular segment of converts rather than dispassionately discuss the science, the pros and cons of the theory, and confrontaand argue the evidence for and against like a professional scientist would.
Overall I’m disappointed in the video, and call for Ben to moderate his guests some more in the future. Maybe get some hard-ball questions in there, confront some of the criticisms so the audience can actually learn a few things.
I do appreciate Ben’s travels and studies into alternative interpretations and theories regarding our prehistoric past. But I do feel being intellectually and logically honest is important, and this is where I feel Howard dropped the ball on this interview.
I strongly disagree, and your comment is nothing more than factually empty statements about your feelings, which I’m certainly not disputing as being yours. Being intellectually and logically honest about the climate change debate will very quickly lead to exactly the same conclusion that both George and I seem to occupy on it. I found his analogy of arguing over what radio station is playing in the car, while the car sits on the train tracks, to be a particularly apt description of the situation. What in the world makes you think that either of us haven’t looked into the science on this topic? Does that seem like a rational or logical conclusion, given the type of work I do, let alone George’s credentials and scientific history?
Your comment is void of any actual data, other than vague criticisms, your feelings about the podcast, and ad hominems like ‘reckless’ and ‘irresponsible’. You are certainly free to express your feelings, but if you want to criticize someone for incorrect statements or logical fallacies, then please also be brave enough to cite the specific examples that you found so egregious, otherwise there is simply no point in discussing it further.
If you’re interested in the reality of the scientific data and the situation around climate change, I’d highly recommend and encourage anyone to watch a few of Tony Heller’s videos on youtube with an open mind.
Bravo Ben!! Both George Howard and Randall Carlson (well all three y’all!), but specifically. Randall (or maybe it’s just I watch him the most!) have been entirely clear about the futile idiocy of “anthropogenic” “global” “warming”! {spit}
Traveller, you’ve apparently only watched “MSM” type – or well-paid alleged-scientist type — b.s., without ANY knowledge of ‘climate’ going back much farther than the 1920s!! Go watch a couple of Carlson’s ‘podcasts’ (they’re video casts, but whatever …) about climate, going way back into PRE-history! Try a couple hundred thousand years, like from the Greenland Ice Cores, or the less clear proxies going back a couple MILLION years! Never ever make any conclusion of the basis of a couple hundred years! Ever heard of “geological time”?
“Climate change” is a financial SCAM and yet another attempt to get brutal control over all humans on the planet!
I didn’t expect you to answer in person, Ben! I really appreciate you took your time to post a response.
I wish to apologise that my tone was rather confrontational and opinionated, but especially the topic of the ongoing climate change is near and dear to me and I view it as one of the most important issues of our lifetimes.
With all due respect, that you propose I watch Steven Goddard (aka Tony Heller)’s videos does strongly suggest you may not have looked into the matter with sufficient detail. Tony Heller is known for purposefully misinterpreting, cherry picking and misrepresenting data – “massaging” the science to fit his arguments rather than looking at the facts the science itself tells us. You will find on review he may not be the most trustworthy source of information.
Instead, I implore you to do what you do best; study primary sources, look up the raw data, consider the research techniques and indeed the interpretations and worldwide consensus of the experts in the field.
If you prefer YouTube, I can recommend looking into “Potholer54” (actually former freelance science journalist and BBC correspondent Peter Hadfield), whom have done a number of great videos and debunks on the topic (including a thorough discussion with Heller). Hadfield manages the rare art of not bogging into his opinion, but only looking at the core science and the interpretations of the scientists involved:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54
But I would really recommend the website Skeptical Science, where you will find detailed in-depth articles looking into climate skepticism versus the findings of professionals. They cover all the common talking points, and you will also find ongoing discussions there that make for fascinating reads:
https://skepticalscience.com/
I implore you to treat this topic with the same open mind and attention to detail that you have demonstrated in your studies into the mysteries of our past.
A swarm of bolides may very well have been the catalyst for the end of the last ice age, and we certainly should keep a lookout for threats from the skies. I do not believe any professional (or even amateur) astronomer would disagree on the latter point; in fact you will find many of them advocate for more money for planetary defence and off-world threat detection. Only political will and reckless disregard tend to stand in the way for doing so, rather than expert opinion.
However, the main threat to our contemporary civilization does not just come from the beyond, but also from the within. You will find, upon proper study, that anthropogenic climate change is not only very real, but if left unchecked will lead to disasters that will tax the fragile balance of society to the breaking point within the end of this century, with the next great extinction event to follow in its wake.
That politics and financials stand in the way of addressing both terrestrial and extraterrestrial threats to the world as we know it are of great concern to me.
Certainly don’t take my word for it. I’m just like you; a “punter on the sidelines” as you put it. Don’t take Tony Heller or Peter Hadfield’s word for it. Look at the science, consider the primary sources. I have seen your videos, you know how this is done. All I ask is that you do what you do best and look it up.
—–
Back to the topic of the recent podcast:
I believe my main disappointment stemmed from the lack of discussion about the pros and cons of the Comet Impact theory. I would have liked a more balanced take on the issue with devil’s advocate or a “good cop vs bad cop” exploration, for example. It could have made for a more informative time had Howard faced and responded to some more of the criticism that’s been made towards the theory over recent years, rather than reiterating old talking points. A great exampleof what I have in mind is what’s often done by the interviewees themselves on the Event Horizon podcast by John Michael Godie (https://www.eventhorizonshow.com/)
This is not to say I necessarily disagree with the science itself, and I certainly do not have the background to contribute actively to the ongoing discussion on the issue. The cometary impact theory is fascinating and makes sense to me, but this is a topic that will no doubt be further discussed and researched by geologists and climatologists for some time to come – especially as the nature and true age of the Hiawatta Crater is established.
Should this be found to correspond to the Younger Drias, one would think that would make for a pretty done deal for even the most ardent skeptic.
On an associated point, I wonder if Howard has considered crowdfunding (in whole or in part) a expedition to Greenland to take core samples of the structure for independent analysis. With the number of us interested in the topic, perhaps we might be able to actively contribute to getting this done through a grassroots effort?
—-
Cheers again for your time, your civility, and for your great channel and website. We may disagree (for the time being) on the topic of contemporary climate change, nevertheless I do appreciate your commentary and often detailed analysis, in-the-field visits and interviews, and your ongoing studies. Thank you for taking us along for the ride.
You’re talking complete nonsense about Tony Heller. He does nothing but use NOAA and NASA data, and he isn’t the one manipulating anything, quite the opposite. That’s why I suspect, once again, you don’t have any specific criticism for him (or George), just vague ad-hominems. I’ve watched some of potholers videos. He was thoroughly debunked by Tony Heller, which you would know if you’d watched any of his videos, in particular the ones he has dedicated to potholer. Potholer is another establishment shill on this topic, using the faulty science and manipulated data that NASA and NOAA put out and the IPCC licks up, which is manipulated junk science and exactly what Tony IRREFUTABLY shows in so many of his excellent videos. The reason Potholer (and you apparently) want to attack Heller is because you CAN’T argue with him on the science, he does nothing but show how NASA and NOAA have IRREFUTABLY manipulated the data to suit their agenda. Heller provides links to the real data, he even wrote an app to make it easier for the general public to do. If you took the time to examine this manipulation you would see that it’s clear as day and utterly IRREFUTABLE. I’ve studied the real data. NASA and NOAA have manipulated the baseline data to suit their alarmist agenda, and their house of cards is falling apart, and many scientists know it.
Have you actually watched a SINGLE video from Tony Heller? I doubt it. I’ve certainly watched plenty of potholer’s and work from other alarmist shills like him, and it’s all extremely corrupt, dishonest tampering of the actual temperature records, and alarmist shilling. Please, with an open mind, just watch one or two of his more popular videos. You might stand to learn something. Look into the 1930s. Look into how incorrect ALL the climate models have proven to be. Look into the history of CO2 and life on this planet. Look into the long history of the alarmist narrative, more than 100 years of ‘its going to melt’ or ‘its going to freeze,’ and how it’s utter bullshit every time. Consider the manipulation and gross exploitation of children like Greta who are biologically unable to comprehend the situation, who are being abused as a propaganda tool by the alarmists (purely in order to scream incoherently at anyone that DARES to disagree with a child) and are being kept out of school. It’s straight child abuse, and it’s sickening.
You post is again empty of any specifics except for rhetoric. None of it is an argument, just rhetoric. I almost wasn’t going to respond to it but I want to note that is is a perfect example of the empty arguments that you get from climate alarmists that refuse to deal in any of the actual data. I’m not interested in any further discussion on this, there’s no point. I asked you to come with some actual data and arguments on specifics (you didn’t – there are an hour 40 or so of them in the podcast) I think we can agree that nothing is going to ever change your mind.
I’m closing the thread, no more posts – please don’t spend your time writing one. I was willing to engage on facts and data, but arguing like this is pointless and frankly a waste of time.
RE Greenland: I don’t know. Perhaps crowd funding is a possibility, I doubt there is enough people to cover the cost of a multi-season core drilling effort, but perhaps it’s something to look into.
If you guys are into climate change as I say is absurb we has a 16 year old kid here in Sweden call Greta.
She is now lifting up from Sweden church as a ’saint’ as she can see CO2…
Of course Sororos and the communism elite is here back this nonsens up.
To be a Swede, I’m ashame over this stupidity that call for more ’world’ taxes.
Traveller.
-Has you been to ex Egypt see the damage ?
That’s my adwise.
I regret I have not yet been to Egypt despite a lifetime desire to go there, mostly due to personal financial circumstances. Thus I quite appreciate the videos and commentaries from Ben, Brian Foerster et al.
Alternative theories and viewpoints about the mysteries of the past is what I’m here for. I’m here to learn – not to teach, and I regret in my failure to self moderate as well as my ineptitude in socialising, I allowed my own bias to get in the way of the message I was trying to provide.
I wish to apologise again for any part of my comments that have offended. I suspect from Ben’s and your own reply that we may be seeing some fundamental differences in culture, background and political views, which we’re indeed probably better off not discussing.
Since Ben has asked this not to be discussed further on these pages, as a guest I will respect and abide by that wish.
Lovely moderate answer Ben, and I too will apologize if I seem too harsh. I very much enjoy your casts, and your ‘playing’
with the Shiny Boy… er… the Snake Bros. I’m off tomorrow night to SEE Randall in person at the Fernbank Museum in Atlanta… wish you were here!