19 May 1981. K–TEC II (Cretaceous-Tertiary Environmental Change II) meeting, Ottawa, Canada. Day one of the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) asteroid impact versus volcano extinctions debate (Russell and Rice, 1982).

Luis Alvarez, Nobel Laureate, glared red–faced at me across the tables that separated us. He and his Berkeley team had just spent half the morning presenting their theory that a giant asteroid slammed into earth 65 million years ago killing most of earth’s life, including the dinosaurs (Alvarez et al., 1980). Their evidence was enrichment of the chemical, iridium, at the geological Cretaceous-Tertiary (K–T) boundary. Some extraterrestrial objects are enriched in iridium, and Alvarez claimed that the iridium was proof of impact. I did not agree. Four months earlier, at the January 1981 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (McLean, 1981a), I proposed that the Deccan Traps volcanism in India, one of the greatest episodes of mantle plume volcanism in earth history, had flooded earth's surface with carbon dioxide, perturbed the carbon cycle, triggered the K-T mass extinctions, and released the K-T iridium onto earth’s surface. My research indicated that the iridium was not proof of impact.

Luis Alvarez, who had big stakes riding on his theory, became angry with me. At the first coffee break, he "ushered" me into an isolated corner out of earshot of the others, and demanded to know if I intended to publicly oppose his asteroid impact theory. I told him that I had no choice but to continue with my research. My research was indicating that greenhouse climatic warming can trigger mass extinctions, and our civilization is today facing a possible greenhouse, so I had a moral obligation to continue with, and publish, my research. Alvarez then threatened me with the same fate that had befallen another scientist who had opposed him. “Let me warn you,” Alvarez said. “— — tried to oppose me, and when I finished with him, the scientific community pays no more attention to — —.” “You’ve been warned,” he concluded.

That afternoon, Walter Alvarez told me, “Dewey, count them, 24 are with us. You are all alone. If you continue to oppose us, you will wind up being the most isolated scientist on this planet.”

The Alvarezes, it was clear, would deal harshly with anyone whose own research stood in the way of their agendas, even to the point of trying to intimidate them into silence. Beginning in 1981, some members of the impact community had reached into the Virginia Tech Department of Geological Sciences where I worked, and nearly destroyed my career, and health.

My departmental Chairperson, a petrologist, who had been highly supportive of my work, and who even wanted to write papers with me, became terrified on learning that a powerful Nobelist, Luis Alvarez, was publicly badmouthing me. He became even more distressed with me when Alvarez's politics, and those of two of Alvarez's main paleontologist supporters were slipped into the department. One, whose research in K-T science has been largely discounted, said that my work was "not going anywhere." The other, who has never written a scientific paper on the K-T extinctions that I am aware of, said that I had spent my career puttering in a "little square mile." Those cheap political shots, although incorrect, hurt me badly. I learned from a friend in the Dean's office that "someone could get fired" because of the K-T scientific debate. I was the only one on campus doing K-T science.

Academic freedom became a meaningless concept for me as my departmental Chairperson and his Assistant Chairperson tried to force me to stop my work on the K-T extinctions. The Chairperson, a petrologist, tried to divert me from K-T research by forcing me into writing up descriptive paleontological materials that had accumulated as part of my graduate research program when I desperately needed time to further develop the theoretical models I had created. I was attempting to articuate a Law of Nature which relates bioevolution and extinction to variations in earth's variable greenhouse, a topic of far greater significance than descriptions of fossils. The Assistant Chairperson, a geochemist, told me that my research should not be done at Virginia Tech, but at a think tank. He told me several times that I should relocate. His close colleague, also a geochemist, told me that Virginia Tech is "not designed to accomodate" my theoretical work. "It does reward your approach," he said. He also stated that I should relocate to "where my kind of work is appreciated." It was under those conditions of terrible harrassment that my health failed in 1984 while I was trying to hold up one side of one of the great scientific debates in history, that I had originated. To understand what happened to me, please read my Letter to Luis Alvarez, my Letter to David Raup, and my Letter to Stephen J. Gould.

In June 1980, the same month as publication of the Alvarez theory (Alvarez et al., 1980), NASA adopted it as the basis for its Spacewatch program. Promises of new monies for the space sciences, new careers, honors, and glory were in the air. Physicists, chemists, astronomers, astrophysicists, journalists, popularizers of science, and historians, who suddenly discovered Earth's fossil record as a rich plum ripe for the picking, raced into K-T science like miners flooding to a new gold strike. Some meant to take over K-T science for their own agendas, in the process playing rough and dirty with scientists who had spent much of their careers doing K-T research. The media blitz—and the Big Sell—was on.

As part of the sales pitch that an impact caused the K-T mass extinction, the Alvarez theory is often presented as a literal truth. In fact, the impact theory has such big holes in it that an Argentinosaurus could be flung cartwheeling through it without touching anything. So does the volcano theory. Today, both theories are but frameworks for future research. No one has proven any dinosaur extinction theory to be correct.

At the beginning of the debate in 1981, and for some time after, the impact and volcano theories were evenly matched. But quickly, the corrupting politics of science and journalism began to overwhelm the science, and favor shifted toward the Alvarez impact theory. It could hardly have been otherwise.

In the Big Sell, some popularizers of science—who have never published a scientific paper on the K-T extinctions—operated as experts to sell the Alvarez theory to the public. One even testified before Congress on the correctness of the Alvarez theory. Editors and journalists at the prestigious publishing houses of Nature and Science, the most popular and widely read scientific magazines in the world, embraced the Alvarez theory. In 1984, at a time when the impact versus volcano K-T extinction debate had hardly begun, the editor of Nature, John Maddox, stated (Nature, 1984, v. 308, p. 685) that, “Luiz and Walter Alvarez appear to have proved their original case that the massive extinction at the end of the Cretaceous period was caused by the impact of some extraterrestrial object.” Some scientists, who were not supportive of the Alvarez theory, claimed little support of their manuscripts by Nature editorial.

For Science, its favoritism of the Alvarez theory, and the literal blanking out of the volcano side by Richard Kerr, a staff writer who covered the K-T debate for Science, are little short of shameful. It was not until 1991, ten years into the debate, that Kerr informed the readers of Science magazine that volcanism may have been a factor in the K-T extinctions. Please see Science Coverage of the K-T Debate, and my Letter to Richard Kerr.

Beginning with the 1981 K-TEC II meeting, I took copious notes of events and conversations, and wrote many letters, that I call the “K-T Letters,” to other people. They document historical aspects of the K–T debate, that might otherwise be buried in the dusts of the history of the K-T debate. Some went to political and scientific leaders, calling to their attention corrupting aspects of K-T science. I called for the development of a meaningful Code of Ethics for science, and an Appellate Commission that might, in the future, prevent destructive politics from overwhelming the processes of science. Others were appeals for help, and others to record the history of events and circumstances. Those letters went to the President of the National Academy of Sciences; members of the National Academy of Sciences who were helping promote the Alvarez theory; Nobel Laureates; Presidents, and President Elects of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); editors of Science, Nature, Mosaic and other magazines; staff writers, and members of the Science editorial board; the Director of the National Science Foundation; popularizers of science; the self–appointed historian of the K–T debate; members of the U. S. House of Representatives, and Senators; and many others. The K-T Letters are an integral part of the historical development of the K-T scientific debate. Some detail actions by individuals that served to corrupt K-T science. I include some K-T Letters in this website.