Is it? Is it well understood? Note that the first couple of posters didnt understand the article.
A couple of years ago all discussions of crustal displacement were "loony tin-foil hat" theories on this forum.
Im wishing nothing but the best for these two Texas "loonies" in their research.
Those who have studied plate tectonics know these "new" ideas have been around since not long after 1958 when the discovery of volcanic mid-oceanic ridges finally proved how the plates move. It's bloody obvious that plate movement has an enormous effect on ocean currents, volcanic activity, mountain-building (subduction) and other phenomena directly related to climate.
Consider that the Arctic plate, previously tropical, is now perched in an ice-locked latitude. It has a major impact on ocean currents and is considered by experts to be largely responsible for recurrent ice ages. Eventually it will move and the climate will change dramatically. But it's only one of many, many factors -- terrestrial and astronomical -- that affect Earth's climate.
The only thing in the article that's worth consideration IMO is their claim to have determined an approximate time for the beginning of plate tectonic activity. I'd like to study their evidence.