Malign Science: Counter argument for KT boundary

Premise

This is a world in which humans are blissfully unaware of their own vulnerability. Needless to say, there are many vulnerabilities to address, however, this question deals only with the vulnerability of cosmic objects impacting Earth causing mass extinction events. The people of this world are clever and have and have the scientific process. They have just discovered the KT boundary:

As a quick reminder, the KT boundary is often referred to as "the smoking gun" of the meteor impact theory that caused the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction that took out the dinosaurs and other fauna. Above it no dinosaur fossils are found (save for descendants like birds), and below it there are dinosaur fossils. Another component is the tell-tale signature of iridium in the KT boundary; this element is virtually non-existent on Earth. For these reasons, it is very logical to associate the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction to a meteor impact. Granted, no one has a crystal ball and scientists can't be 100% certain of such a distant event in the past, but it is nonetheless one of the most evidence-backed theories to date.

In my world there are a handful of scientists who are already making these connections and writing papers to advance this very notion. However for this world to remain unaware of cosmic impact vulnerabilities there must be a counter argument, and a strong one at that. The easy fix-all is just to make everyone ignorant and uneducated, but I feel this would make for a much too boring of a world. Instead, let's not forget these world-dwellers have the scientific method and we won't be able to pull the cotton over their eyes with just any trivial counter argument.

Question

We are trying to give this science-literate world a convincing alternate theory, albeit a likely incorrect one (hence malign science):

Imagine you are a very adept and qualified scientist, and I'm sure a lot here already fit the bill. Next, force yourself to play devil's advocate: what is the most compelling scientific argument that can be made to explain the KT Boundary that refutes meteor impact or implies a different narrative?

Quality Metric: Evidence is preferred, but solutions must at least remain scientifically plausible, so as to not become the laughing stock of the scientific community.

Further Clarifications:

• other impact evidence is out of scope; we don't have to concern ourselves with such evidence...yet (i.e. craters on the moon, Chicxulub, or elsewhere)
• the only things your answer should explain is the implications of the KT boundary as we currently understand them. For simplicity's sake, assume: 1. fossil evidence disparity 2. iridium signature

Imagine trying to finish this sentence:

"What we are seeing here in the KT boundary is not evidence of a massive meteor impact, but rather ____________"

posted about 6 years ago

Arash Howaida‭

1 reputation 36 0 0 0