A theory based on past history as opposed to theory based on supposition. Not the same thing. These guys have actually taken known facts and observations and plugged them into the computers to come up with their theory. The GW crowd goes the opposite direction. They have the answer, i.e. the computer models and now are trying to find proof.
No, that's not what they did. They took their observations, probably more in a qualitative sense, came up with a model. Then they built a computer code using that model, and generated "predictions". Their predictions match reality better than those of the previously most accepted model.
The GW models are of dubious origin, in the sense that they use dubious assumptions and ignore significant factors. Increasingly they diverge from reality. IOW, they are bad models.
Exactly. All they're doing is refining what is already known and observed about plate tectonics. If the computer models hold up, I think this is the important element of the scientists' work:
"The computer models demonstrate that the subducted portion of a tectonic plate pulls on the portion of the plate that remains on the earth's surface. This pull results in either the motion of the plate, or the motion of the plate boundary, with the size of the subduction zone determining how much of each."
"In some ways, plate tectonics is the surface expression of dynamics in the earth's interior but now we understand the plates themselves are controlling the process more than the mantle underneath. It means Earth is really more of a top-down system than the predominantly held view that plate motion is being driven from the bottom-up."