Plate Climatology Theory

[Marc Linquist + 63]

Hey everyone,

     I have something here that I believe is a beautiful example of a person applying pure scientific reasoning. A retired geologist by the name of James Edward Kamis has released a video recently that explains in stunning simplicity his research he debuted in 2014 on his website.  I hope those here and elsewhere who have been engaging in wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the polar regions, and the whole climate change fiasco in general, will feel a little ashamed of their participation in the ridiculous hegemony of unsubstantiated hype that they have perpetuated here and elsewhere.

You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX1e_uU5u3A

And his website here that also has the video presentation: http://www.plateclimatology.com/  

Please share this video and website with everyone you know.  This is great research done the right way.

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

Hey everyone,

     I have something here that I believe is a beautiful example of a person applying pure scientific reasoning. A retired geologist by the name of James Edward Kamis has released a video recently that explains in stunning simplicity his research he debuted in 2014 on his website.   

Please share this video and website with everyone you know.  This is great research done the right way.

It is actually a wonderful example of junk science and alert readers will know it it is not as theory at all because it lacks the ability to explain what it sets out to do.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

53 minutes ago, remake it said:

It is actually a wonderful example of junk science and alert readers will know it it is not as theory at all because it lacks the ability to explain what it sets out to do.

   I doubt you even bothered to go to the website or even watched the video. Dismissive comments such as the one you just made reveal more than anything else an intellectual dishonesty of the speaker. James Kamis spent over 40 years in the private sector applying his expertise in geology. I doubt anyone with a true and honest scientific curiosity would suggest that he was not living up to his true professional scientific standards.

    Your comment also reveals that you fear more than any other this type of straight forward Occam's razor wielding science that stands diametrically opposite of the poorly constrained climate science that is not any closer to explaining the natural world then it was ten years ago.

Things are not going to get any better for you my friend, the observations of the natural world will continue to be out of reach to those who don't follow the evidence. 

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

   I doubt you even bothered to go to the website or even watched the video. Dismissive comments such as the one you just made reveal more than anything else an intellectual dishonesty of the speaker. James Kamis spent over 40 years in the private sector applying his expertise in geology. I doubt anyone with a true and honest scientific curiosity would suggest that he was not living up to his true professional scientific standards.

Kamis has failed to gain traction for his ideas because they lack scientific rigour, which is very obvious except, perhaps, to you.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Thanks Marc.  It's an uphill battle arguing with the climate religion.

For your amusement.  No, this is not The Onion.  The article is serious.  2nd Law of Thermodynamics be damned.  Read the whole article, it is absolutely breathtaking in its stupidity.

Iceberg-making submarine aims to tackle global warming by re-freezing the Arctic

A team of designers led by Faris Rajak Kotahatuhaha proposes re-freezing sea water in the Arctic to create miniature modular icebergs using a submarine-like vessel, in a bid to combat climate change.

The Indonesian designer worked on the prototype with collaborators Denny Lesmana Budi and Fiera Alifa for an international competition organised by the Association of Siamese Architects.

The team was awarded second prize in the contest for its geoengineering proposal to re-freeze the Arctic and transform sea water into new ice fields.  ....

 

=============================

Let me see if I can match this mindboggling absurdity with my own proposal:

 

How about we build a billion new air conditioners and install them in deserts to cool down the earth.  That should fix everything.  Do I win an award for my proposal?

 

When I posted my absurd proposal on LinkedIn, I received this comment:

 

 

 

 

 

And in closing ....

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Kamis has failed to gain traction for his ideas because they lack scientific rigour, which is very obvious except, perhaps, to you.

Kamis and many others who have brought this fact up, lack "rigour and vigour" as you put it because it would literally require Billions of $$$ to do the exploratory drilling/sampling.  It could also prove the climate religious devout wrong.  So, it could take money away from the priesthood and could prove the priesthood wrong.....  uh yea, no.  The priesthood, who divy the money out, and allow "scientists" to publish, is going to excommunicate this scientific inquiry because it could upend their power structure even if it could support their own position. 

An unknown neither invalidates nor validates a position. 

PS: How many Mega Watts from the Mid Atlantic ridge are dumped into the ocean every year?  We have NO IDEA other than: A LOT.  There are what? 10 drill holes in a couple spots? If the Mid atlantic ridge volcano was a Blue whale all other volcanoes look like a bacterium in comparison

Edited July 29, 2019 by Wastral

[remake it + 288]

10 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Kamis and many others who have brought this fact up, lack "rigour and vigour" as you put it because it would literally require Billions of $$$ to do the exploratory drilling/sampling.  

Facts in science use data, which Kamis does not provide, while your idea simply requires ocean temperature measurements (of which there are now millions available) to determine where and how much energy is being transferred.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

  It's great to see you here Tom, and I don't mind talking to remake it, I have always suspected these anonymous posters are the typical frustrated types. Want everyone to conform to the groupthink mind set. They don't like us creative problem solvers. "No need for any new science here"  "The world is flat"  "STOP MAKING ME THINK!" 

   That video by James Kamis is really great.  He's so polite and cautious about offending the delicate sensibilities of any warmers who might be watching the video, it's like he's trying to hand feed a dozen wild deer and doesn't want to spook them. But if you listen carefully you can make out a little bit of  "I can't believe you people would want to argue about this, it's so damn obvious"  in his voice.

12 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Kamis and many others who have brought this fact up, lack "rigour and vigour" as you put it because it would literally require Billions of $$$ to do the exploratory drilling/sampling.  It could also prove the climate religious devout wrong.  So, it could take money away from the priesthood and could prove the priesthood wrong.....  uh yea, no.  The priesthood, who divy the money out, and allow "scientists" to publish, is going to excommunicate this scientific inquiry because it could upend their power structure even if it could support their own position. 

An unknown neither invalidates nor validates a position. 

 

11 minutes ago, remake it said:

Facts in science use data, which Kamis does not provide, while your idea simply requires ocean temperature measurements (of which there are now millions available) to determine where and how much energy is being transferred.

Luckily the NASA research he uses is kind hard to argue against, the volcanically active side of the Antarctic that is only 20% of the total continental land area has 100% of the ice loss in very specific areas surrounded by volcanoes, the other side that makes up 80% of the continent had ice gain.  Go figure.  

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Marc Linquist said:

  It's great to see you here Tom, and I don't mind talking to remake it, I have always suspected these anonymous posters are the typical frustrated types.  

Ad hominems do not make an argument, just as the claims of Kamis do not constitute anything near ‘climatology,” especially given he has no publications in that field despite years of proposing his “idea” which is not even close to being a theory.

Edited July 29, 2019 by remake it
Fix autocorrected Latin

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

15 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

Hey everyone,

     I have something here that I believe is a beautiful example of a person applying pure scientific reasoning. A retired geologist by the name of James Edward Kamis has released a video recently that explains in stunning simplicity his research he debuted in 2014 on his website.  I hope those here and elsewhere who have been engaging in wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the polar regions, and the whole climate change fiasco in general, will feel a little ashamed of their participation in the ridiculous hegemony of unsubstantiated hype that they have perpetuated here and elsewhere.

You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX1e_uU5u3A

And his website here that also has the video presentation: http://www.plateclimatology.com/  

Please share this video and website with everyone you know.  This is great research done the right way.

Fantastic video! Good science!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

15 hours ago, remake it said:

It is actually a wonderful example of junk science and alert readers will know it it is not as theory at all because it lacks the ability to explain what it sets out to do.

You apparently wouldn't know 'junk science' if it bit you in the arse!

The author has a valid theory, supported his facts and did not try to disparage any other theory! 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, remake it said:

Ad hominems do not make an argument, just as the claims of Kamis do not constitute anything near ‘climatology,” especially given he has no publications in that field despite years of proposing his “idea” which is not even close to being a theory.

How are his 'ideas' less than a theory? Must you be published to forward a valid explanation for what is observed?

Half the publications 'out there' are from people who are in the 'publish or perish' arena.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

8 hours ago, Marc Linquist said:

Luckily the NASA research he uses is kind hard to argue against, the volcanically active side of the Antarctic that is only 20% of the total continental land area has 100% of the ice loss in very specific areas surrounded by volcanoes, the other side that makes up 80% of the continent had ice gain.  Go figure.  

Heat and lava melt ice?  🤔

Aren't they at the south pole? 

Things work opposite down under

Everything is "fair dinkum" and "legend"

[remake it + 288]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How are his 'ideas' less than a theory? Must you be published to forward a valid explanation for what is observed?

Kamis has no data to support his ideas, which are not at all explanatory, and if you do not appreciate how this is vital to a theory then it may be best to hold back your comments.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

15 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How are his 'ideas' less than a theory? Must you be published to forward a valid explanation for what is observed?

Half the publications 'out there' are from people who are in the 'publish or perish' arena.

Not at all; Science, or more to the point, Scientific Inquiry, strives to be conducted free of all prejudicial influences. In the list of logical fallacies are some of the most common.

From Wikipedia;

Here's one that remake it likes to use:  "The continuum fallacy is closely related to the sorites paradox, or paradox of the heap. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity."

And then there is the Appeal to Authority that remake it is doing now claiming that James Kamis lacks in some way the credentials to make any type of credible scientific observation. 

For example;

22 hours ago, remake it said:

Ad hominems do not make an argument, just as the claims of Kamis do not constitute anything near ‘climatology,” especially given he has no publications in that field despite years of proposing his “idea” which is not even close to being a theory.

 To quote Carl Sagan;

"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."   

And this one seems appropriate to this situation: Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.

   So, science should be conducted in an environment where only the idea is scrutinized and not the person making it.  James Kamis has done Geology proud by doing what science is supposed to do, ignore the critics and test the status quo.  Science, pure science is about breaking the status quo.  Smashing paradigms to pieces.    

9 hours ago, remake it said:

Kamis has no data to support his ideas, which are not at all explanatory, and if you do not appreciate how this is vital to a theory then it may be best to hold back your comments.

Medice, cura te ipsum, Physician, heal thyself

 

[remake it + 288]

46 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

James Kamis has done Geology proud by doing what science is supposed to do, ignore the critics and test the status quo.  Science, pure science is about breaking the status quo.  Smashing paradigms to pieces.

Kamis has failed basic science, which involves a methodical approach to testing his ideas, and you and others are sidetracking this crucial point with trite innuendo.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Apparently remake it, you disagree with the theory put forth by Kamis because it does not fit your preconcieved opinion regarding climate change. Furthermore, you apparently get your knickers in a knot is anyone else believes that Kamis' idea has merit.

Let's just leave it at that....

[remake it + 288]

45 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Apparently remake it, you disagree with the theory put forth by Kamis because it does not fit your preconcieved opinion regarding climate change. Furthermore, you apparently get your knickers in a knot is anyone else believes that Kamis' idea has merit.

Let's just leave it at that....

As it fails the tests of valid science, any other points you make are not at issue.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Okay, you win! It is only your opinion which counts

Please reply so that we can all be assured that you had the last word. Apparently that is important to you and validates your opinion.

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, you win! It is only your opinion which counts

Please reply so that we can all be assured that you had the last word. Apparently that is important to you and validates your opinion.

Science is not an “opinion” so you might do well to learn what makes it what it is understood to be.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

19 hours ago, remake it said:

Science is not an “opinion” so you might do well to learn what makes it what it is understood to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion#Scientific_opinion

Scientific opinion

"Scientific opinion" may reflect opinions on scientific concerns as articulated by one or more scientists, published in scholarly journals or respected textbooks, both of which entail peer-review and rigorous professional editing. It may also refer to opinions published by professional, academic, or governmental organizations about scientific findings and their possible implications.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

@Marc Linquist you may have a better conversation with this, in case you haven't figured it out yet.  Some obstinance by certain persons is deliberate; a feature, and not a flaw.  Carry on, if you are so inclined to try to convince someone who will never be convinced.  

[Marc Linquist + 63]

Like I said Tom, I don't mind the time spent in regards to remake it, I find his habitually clumsy insolence toward others a comical relief. 

You know, like when the heckler falls backwards off the * wall into the trash can.

 

 *brick

Edited July 31, 2019 by Marc Linquist

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Marc Linquist said:

Like I said Tom, I don't mind the time spent in regards to remake it, I find his habitually clumsy insolence toward others a comical relief. 

Kamis, contrary to your initial claim, has never conducted any scientific research, has never contributed anything towards scientific endeavour, has never calculated the energy transfers necessary to make credible comments on climate, has never shown that his ideas would be replicable given the abundant information presently available, and is unable to use his “theory” to predict the most probable climate outcomes into the future: making his efforts a perfect candidate for the “junk science” label.

[specinho + 467]

On 7/29/2019 at 1:53 AM, Marc Linquist said:

Hey everyone,

     I have something here that I believe is a beautiful example of a person applying pure scientific reasoning. A retired geologist by the name of James Edward Kamis has released a video recently that explains in stunning simplicity his research he debuted in 2014 on his website.  I hope those here and elsewhere who have been engaging in wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the polar regions, and the whole climate change fiasco in general, will feel a little ashamed of their participation in the ridiculous hegemony of unsubstantiated hype that they have perpetuated here and elsewhere.

You can view the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX1e_uU5u3A

And his website here that also has the video presentation: http://www.plateclimatology.com/  

Please share this video and website with everyone you know.  This is great research done the right way.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 4:36 AM, remake it said:

It is actually a wonderful example of junk science and alert readers will know it it is not as theory at all because it lacks the ability to explain what it sets out to do.

 

On 7/29/2019 at 11:57 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Thanks Marc.  It's an uphill battle arguing with the climate religion.

For your amusement.  No, this is not The Onion.  The article is serious.  2nd Law of Thermodynamics be damned.  Read the whole article, it is absolutely breathtaking in its stupidity.

Iceberg-making submarine aims to tackle global warming by re-freezing the Arctic

Err.... gentlemen......... there is another perspective here............