| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4723307 | Precambrian Research | 2013 | 5 Pages |
Bédard's (2013) comment on Wyman (2013), itself an outgrowth of a 5IAS workshop debate, has clarified several points concerning the catalytic delamination-driven model of Bédard (2006). Many of the references to Archean plate tectonic models, however, are expressed in terms of an improbable uniformitarian viewpoint that could not be applied to the modern Earth. Whereas differences between Archean and Phanerozoic plateau basalts have been attributed to a less depleted mantle source, any similar arguments from advocates of Archean plate tectonics are characterized as special pleading. Bédard (2013) does not address key issues raised by Wyman (2013) and when the paper does attempt to resolve apparent dilemmas related to craton development, it undermines the new refinements made to the non-plate tectonic scenario that Bédard favors.
► Criticisms characterized as dogmatic by Bédard (2013) remain unanswered. ► “Straw man” uniformitarian arguments against Archean plate tectonics could not even be applied to Phanerozoic Earth. ► Counter-arguments against the Global Pilbara problem undermine the new Bédard et al. (2013) non-plate tectonic model.
