The hypothesis is widely rejected by relevant experts.[2][1][3][4] It is influenced by creationism, and has been compared to cold fusion by its critics due to the lack of reproducibility of results.[5] It is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction in, or shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor due to a sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.[6][7][8]

I’m just a holocene researcher in a geoscience dept lmao, but don’t take my word for it though, the wikipedia has plenty of links to explain why this is a bunk theory in far more detail including links to more credible journals on the subject. In fact, most of the article is about why it is so controversial. This is literally the time period I look at.

If you want a reccomendation, this is a better resource: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223001915?via=ihub

According to the Journal Citation Reports, the PlosONE journal has a 2024 impact factor of 2.6. The journal I linked above sits at about a 20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/earth-science-reviews This is extremely good for a specialized journal, especially in earth science. You tend to only see higher in Medicine and in journals like Nature or Science. For reference, Nature, the most cited journal, sits at about 50-60 iirc. PlosONE is not specialized and its’ score of 2-3 barely scratches “The Conversation,” and in the case of this paper in particular will likely include refutes lol.

If you have specific questions, I’d be happy to answer them, or grab someone around me that knows better, but I’d start at the wiki first.