damoncasale writes:
If a respected publication can give a balanced approach on such a theory, why can't I?
Why can't you? From the little I've seen from you, which is just what's in this thread and your book reviews over at Amazon, you seem highly credulous. With a credulous approach the possibility that a comet was responsible for the Younger Dryas extinction becomes the basis for drawing time correlations with a supernova and concluding that was the cause. Speculation piles upon speculation. This is why I don't believe you can take a balanced approach.
The original PNAS paper upon which the American Archaeology article is based can be found here:
Note that a key sentence in the conclusion begins like this:
PNAS paper writes:
These associations, if confirmed, ...
It would be really neat if such things were confirmed, but all they have right now is a really neat idea, and it's competing with a bunch of other really neat ideas. There's insufficient evidence at this time to choose among the possibilities.
I think you misread what I wrote.
Yes, you're right, sorry about that.
Since you're not doing any original research, if you want to do a scholarly work you would do well to keep your focus on what is well established. If you follow this course then you become a science popularizer, distilling complex scientific knowledge for laypeople, and so, for instance, about the cometary possibility you would discuss it as one among many possibilities, and you would discuss the other possibilities, too. But if you want to sell books then I think your current path is the best choice.
--Percy