Plate Climatology Theory

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The Titanic was about 46,000 tons (gross).  That is puny by today's standards.  The Symphony of the Seas  (Royal Caribbean Line) comes in at over 228,000 gross tons.  Lots of cruise ships today are at 225,000 tons or more.  Incidentally a big monster aircraft carrier with eight nuclear reactors to run it is only around 110,000 tons.  Go figure!

[Marc Linquist + 63]

17 hours ago, remake it said:

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.

And he falls back into the trash can.

OK, lets skip over the fact that you are still committing the same logical fallacies again. Let's just get to the center of your serial abuse of logic. You say his work does not meet your discerning scientific sensibilities.  That is amazing considering that a retired Geologist like James Kamis presented his ideas and evidence at a American Meteorological Society scientific conference. 

Here is the AMS conference "Who we are" page, James Kamis' conference poster and the Author index where he is listed,.

WOW look at all those other scientific Authors!  You must think they are all a bunch of junk science hacks too!

OK, you can climb back out of the trash can now.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/96Annual/webprogram/start.html

[remake it + 288]

40 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

And he falls back into the trash can.

OK, lets skip over the fact that you are still committing the same logical fallacies again. Let's just get to the center of your serial abuse of logic. You say his work does not meet your discerning scientific sensibilities. 

It is apparent you cannot present an argument and do not understand what is necessary for something to be a theory, but prefer to “play the man” than deal with facts.

Edited August 1, 2019 by remake it
No but, yes but

[Marc Linquist + 63]

21 minutes ago, remake it said:

It is apparent you cannot present an argument and do not understand what is necessary for something to be a theory, but prefer to “play the man” than deal with facts.

There is only one fact, you cannot rationalize why you have been misled for so long as to the cause of polar warming. So you strike out at what it is that confronts you with the truth. 

[remake it + 288]

9 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

There is only one fact, you cannot rationalize why you have been misled for so long as to the cause of polar warming. So you strike out at what it is that confronts you with the truth. 

You presented an idea from a person which has no research and no data supporting how any aspects of climate are actually affected, and are happy to consider it a “theory,” despite it failing every test of what it means that something has a scientific basis.

[Marc Linquist + 63]

22 minutes ago, remake it said:

You presented an idea from a person which has no research and no data supporting how any aspects of climate are actually affected, and are happy to consider it a “theory,” despite it failing every test of what it means that something has a scientific basis.

You keep repeating the same. There can be only two reason you are stuck in your predicament; 

A.    You never watched the video or went to the link to read the presentation because you are afraid that you have been misled all these years.

B.    You cannot rationalize why you have been misled for so long as to the cause of polar warming. So you are striking out at what it is that confronts you with the truth.

Looking at what you have posted on this thread, I would say both. 

[remake it + 288]

12 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

You keep repeating the same. There can be only two reason you are stuck in your predicament; 

A.    You never watched the video or went to the link to read the presentation because you are afraid that you have been misled all these years.

B.    You cannot rationalize why you have been misled for so long as to the cause of polar warming. So you are striking out at what it is that confronts you with the truth.

Looking at what you have posted on this thread, I would say both. 

Please deal with the fact that Kamis has done no scientific research yet presents what he calls a theory despite it failing any reasonable test of what one is ( and remember this is supposed to be about science).

[Marc Linquist + 63]

13 minutes ago, remake it said:

Please deal with the fact that Kamis has done no scientific research yet presents what he calls a theory despite it failing any reasonable test of what one is ( and remember this is supposed to be about science).

And he falls off the wall again. 

If you had a clue you would have in your first post submitted a detailed list of objections (with references).  That is how it is done. At peer review, or even on a simple Science forum, like the one where I have successfully debated against PhD scientists and defended my arguments for my own hypothesis.  You have done nothing to formally submit your detailed objections of his observations.  

    For you to do this though you would need to understand what he has proposed and then studied the relevant available research to construct your argument. And your argument is empty without the supporting references. If you go to my https://www.electroplatetectonics.com/ you will see a very detailed description of this planet's mode of operation. It makes incredibly robust predictions of observations. And it took many years of reading research papers to build that model.

  And, what is good fortune for James Kamis, my model supports his ideas very robustly. 

   That is how Science is done. It is hard work, thousands of hours of reading late at night. Otherwise you will just look like you do now. Like someone pulling stuff out of their posterior.  

So, until you do some actual work, you will just look like child repeating yourself over and over. And I ignore annoying children and trolls. Better start reading his research and compiling that list with references or you are done here. Don't waste your next post I won't respond.

[remake it + 288]

20 minutes ago, Marc Linquist said:

If you had a clue you would have in your first post submitted a detailed list of objections (with references).  That is how it is done. At peer review, or even on a simple Science forum, like the one where I have successfully debated against PhD scientists and defended my arguments for my own hypothesis.  You have done nothing to formally submit your detailed objections of his observations.  

As Kamis has never made any contributions to science the only fair response is that there is nothing at all that can be objected to:  0 = 0.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Anyone seen that brick wall I mentioned earlier?  Can't seem to find it.  Oh wait, here it is...