To make Van Rijn's point again, in this more specific example, I looked over the claims that the data showed, and I couldn't see anything in it. For instance, most of the data points that are used to show that "expansion" are on land, in active areas, and it is generally agreed in the mainstream that the ocean bottoms are subsiding due to cooling--so, in the mainstream version, there is a clear bias. In the ATM version, there isn't, but instead it's strong evidence for expansion. That just means that the advocates don't understand the mainstream, and they don't understand the data. But that's how it usually goes, in ATM. That's why we have ATM.