> This was somewhat discounted only 10 years ago, but now is more than the majority consensus in the field (“Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis”). Is it the "majo

> This was somewhat discounted only 10 years ago, but now is more than the majority consensus in the field (“Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis”). Is it the "majority consensus"? The hypothesis' Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi...) has links to multiple recent articles arguing against it (in both the "Evidence" and "Criticism" sections), including ones like https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under-greenland-s-ice-points-climate-altering-impact-time-humans https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/massive-crater-under... suggesting that the Greenlandic impact event might have happened at the wrong time or not produced the widespread effects you and other proponents of the hypothesis suggest: > Even if the asteroid struck at the right moment, it might not have unleashed all the disasters envisioned by proponents of the Younger Dryas impact. "It's too small and too far away to kill off the Pleistocene mammals in the continental United States," Melosh says. And how a strike could spark flames in such a cold, barren region is hard to see. "I can't imagine how something like this impact in this location could have caused massive fires in North America," Marlon says.