This neither proves nor disproves the AGW hypothesis but it is a good example of new hypothesis in the climate arena. The AGW crowd pretends to believe they know all the players in the game and have everything figured out but like I always say, we don't know what we don't know. "When an oceanic plate and a continental plate smash into each other, they can buckle upwards and eventually create mountain ranges like the Himalayas. The fault zones that result from these collisions are known as "sutures," and the team found that large sutures seemed to appear near the equator just before each of the last three major ice ages. The researchers suggest that that's no coincidence." "We think that arc-continent collisions at low latitudes are the trigger for global cooling," says Oliver Jagoutz, an author of the study. "This could occur over 1- 5 million square kilometers (0.4 to 1.9 million sq mi), which sounds like a lot. But in reality, it's a very thin strip of Earth, sitting in the right location, that can change the global climate." So what do tropical sutures have to do with global cooling? The team says that when continents collide, oceanic rocks known as ophiolites are thrust out into the open. These newly-exposed rocks can react with the carbon dioxide in the air and effectively trap it. Given a large enough suture and the right environmental conditions, this new carbon sink could pull enough CO2 out of the atmosphere to bring on a global cooling event. By the same token, this mechanism could also be responsible for ending ice ages too. After millions of years of absorbing CO2, the ophiolites would wear away in the weather, reducing the uptake of the gas. That lets it build back up in the atmosphere and gradually warm the planet back up. "We showed that this process can start and end glaciation," says Jagoutz. "Then we wondered, how often does that work? If our hypothesis is correct, we should find that for every time there's a cooling event, there are a lot of sutures in the tropics." https://newatlas.com/tropical-tectonics-ice-age/58880/
That's a profoundly anti-science and anti-rationality position on your part. According to you, since we can't be sure we know every single thing about gravity, we have to assume we know nothing, so we can't launch rockets. That illustrates why it's such an irrational position. Of course, you don't hold your own position consistently. In almost every case, you're fine with acting on imperfect knowledge. You only trot out your anti-science position in the single case of climate science. That illustrates how your beliefs regarding climate science are based on religion and politics, instead of rationality. As for the mountain-building process your article described, it would run on time spans over tens of millions of years, so we know with certainty that it's not a factor changing climate right now.
