From Colonialism to Racketeering: 

Read our editorial on why the U.S. must keep its hands off Greenland

THIS BOOK is being rewritten

PART ONE: The Asymmetric Anomaly

Chapter 1: The Asymmetric Ice Age

When the modern mind attempts to reconstruct the history of our planet, specifically the cataclysmic epoch known as the Last Glacial Maximum, it often relies on a simplified and symmetrical mental image. We tend to picture a globe uniformly gripped by frost, a white planetary blanket descending evenly from the North Pole to cover the Northern Hemisphere in a perfect circle of cold. In this popular conception, the ice retreated and advanced in a consistent rhythm around the current Arctic axis, driven solely by the rise and fall of global atmospheric temperatures. We imagine that if New York was freezing, the rest of the world at that latitude must have been freezing in unison.

However, the physical evidence etched into the Earth’s surface—the deep scars of the glaciers, the geological striations, and the fossilized graveyards of the megafauna—tells a radically different, more complex, and unsettling story. The last Ice Age was not a global blanket; it was a lopsided, asymmetric weight that crushed specific continents while leaving others strangely, and inexplicably, untouched. The standard model of a "Global Ice Age" is a convenient fiction that masks a profound geophysical anomaly.

This book investigates that anomaly. We focus on the massive, disproportionate glaciation of Europe and Eastern North America compared to the temperate, life-sustaining conditions of Eastern Siberia and Alaska.

The geological record provides indisputable and stark proof of this asymmetry. Approximately twenty thousand years ago, during the height of the last ice age, a massive complex of ice sheets—the Laurentide in North America and the Fenno-Scandian in Europe—buried vast tracts of the Northern Hemisphere. This was not merely a thin frost or a seasonal snow cover; it was a crust-crushing weight of solid ice, reaching thicknesses of up to three kilometers. This ice was heavy enough to depress the tectonic plates of the Earth, bowing the crust downward by hundreds of meters and carving out the deep, granite basins of the Great Lakes. The land where modern civilizations now thrive—New York, Toronto, London, Berlin, and Scandinavia—was entombed under an overburden of ice comparable to the frozen heart of modern Antarctica. In these regions, life was impossible. The sheer mass of this ice suggests a polar cold of extreme intensity and duration.

However, the asymmetry becomes glaringly apparent when we look at the other side of the world. If an observer were to travel to the exact same latitude in the Eastern Hemisphere—to the vast territories of Eastern Siberia, the Bering Strait, and Alaska—they would not find miles of ice. In this region, collectively known to paleontologists as Beringia, the land was remarkably and paradoxically free of glaciers. While the Atlantic world was being ground to dust under the weight of ice sheets, the Pacific side of the Arctic remained open land.

Instead of a frozen, abiotic wasteland, there existed the Mammoth Steppe. This was a vast, arid, yet highly productive grassy plain that stretched for thousands of kilometers. It was a biological engine that supported massive herds of woolly mammoths, wild horses, steppe bison, and woolly rhinoceroses. These were not animals that could survive on the surface of an ice sheet; they were grazers requiring vast quantities of vegetation. The presence of such a high-biomass ecosystem implies that the ground was not permanently frozen solid, that the summer growing season was long enough to produce tall grasses, and that the winter sun provided enough light to sustain activity.

This presents a profound contradiction in the standard historical model. If the North Pole were fixed in its current position, Eastern Siberia should have been the single coldest place on Earth during the Ice Age. It is a vast continental landmass, far removed from the warming influence of the Atlantic Ocean, sitting at a high latitude. In the modern climate, it is known for extreme cold. Yet, at the very height of the Ice Age, when the Atlantic world was frozen solid, Siberia was a habitable refuge.

For decades, the scientific community has attempted to resolve this discrepancy through atmospheric models. The prevailing theory is the "Aridity Hypothesis," which suggests that Siberia was simply too dry to form glaciers. The argument is that moisture was locked up elsewhere, preventing snowfall in the East. While this explains the lack of ice accumulation, it fails to explain the presence of life. It does not account for the thermal energy required to sustain a grassland ecosystem in a region that, by modern geography, should have been plunged into months of total darkness and temperatures approaching negative sixty degrees Celsius. Dry cold is still cold; it does not grow grass for mammoths.

We explore a different mechanism entirely. We investigate how the change in the weight of the Earth—specifically due to huge fluctuations in the hydrological balance, such as the massive accumulation of water in the marshes of Siberia and the shifting of water tables—can alter the rotation of the sphere. The Earth is not a solid rock; it is a dynamic, spinning top that must maintain perfect balance. When weight shifts on the surface, the axis of rotation must shift to compensate.

We propose that the Spin North Pole—the axis of rotation itself—was not located in the Arctic Ocean where it is today. We suggest that the axis was tilted toward the Atlantic, placing the North Pole roughly fifteen degrees closer to Greenland. This shift explains the anomaly: Europe was colder because it was closer to the pole, and Siberia was warmer because it was further away.

It is of the utmost importance to state that this book is not proposing an alternative to climate change theories. We are not disputing the physics of the greenhouse effect, the role of carbon dioxide, or the reality of anthropogenic global warming. On the contrary, this book aims to supplement and strengthen the climate change model.

Currently, climate skeptics often exploit these historical anomalies—the "warm" Siberia or the uneven melting of the past—to argue that the climate is chaotic and the current models are flawed. By failing to offer a robust explanation for these regional quirks, the standard model leaves a door open for denial. It allows critics to say, "If the models can't explain why Siberia was warm when Europe was frozen, how can they predict the future?"

This work intends to close that door. By providing a mechanical explanation for the regions that do not fit the standard model, we place the science of climate change on a better footing. When the "things that do not fit" are explained away by the shift of the Spin North Pole, the climate change model stands on firmer ground. It becomes undeniable. Once the mechanical noise is filtered out, the signal of atmospheric warming becomes clear and irrefutable.

After establishing this mechanical baseline, the book will assert that this is an alternative theory that explains not only the past but the present. It offers a clear reason why Europe was plunged into an Ice Age and, crucially, why it is currently warming faster and why ice is disappearing faster in certain regions than others. The movement of the pole is not a thing of the ancient past; it is a dynamic process that continues to affect us.

We will then extend this logic into the very long-term history of the Earth, looking at SNP (Spin North Pole) shifts over millions of years. We will look at the series of ice ages not as accidents, but as predictable swings of a pendulum. At the same time, we will acknowledge that SNP shifts do not explain all weather cycles. There are many rhythms to the planet, but this is a vital, dominant one that has been ignored for too long. We will present evidence to support this theory, focusing on the gradual movement of weight and avoiding dramatic, catastrophic claims like instant floods, which are inconsistent with the slow, viscous movement of a planet rebalancing itself.

Discourse 1: The Limits of Atmospheric Explanations

1.1 The Siberian Paradox

To fully grasp the necessity of the Spin North Pole theory, we must first rigorously examine the explanation currently offered by the standard model. When confronted with the geological reality that Eastern Siberia and Alaska were ice-free during the Last Glacial Maximum, climatologists universally rely on the "Aridity Hypothesis."

This hypothesis is based on a sound meteorological principle: precipitation is the fuel of glaciers. For an ice sheet to grow three kilometers thick, water must evaporate from the oceans, travel through the atmosphere, and precipitate as snow. During the Ice Age, so much global water was locked up in the Laurentide and Fenno-Scandian ice sheets that global sea levels dropped by over one hundred and twenty meters. The Arctic Ocean was largely frozen over, and the Pacific Ocean’s moisture was, according to the models, blocked from reaching Siberia by shifting wind patterns. Therefore, the standard model concludes, Siberia remained bare ground not because it was warm, but because it was starved of snow.

If we were merely discussing the presence or absence of ice, this explanation would be sufficient. A frozen rock desert is geologically distinct from a glacier, but both are consistent with a fixed North Pole. However, we are not looking at a rock desert. We are looking at a biological impossibility.

The fossil record of Beringia (the land bridge and surrounding territories of Siberia and Alaska) reveals the existence of the "Mammoth Steppe." This was not a sparse tundra; it was a productive grassland biome that supported a density of large animals comparable to the African Serengeti. We find the remains of woolly mammoths, steppe bison, wild horses, and woolly rhinoceroses.

We must apply the laws of thermodynamics and biology to this ecosystem. A single adult mammoth is a biological furnace that requires approximately two hundred kilograms of dry biomass every day to maintain its metabolic functions. A herd of mammoths requires tons of grass daily. Grass is a mechanism that converts solar energy into chemical energy. It requires two things: liquid water in the soil during the growing season, and, most crucially, sunlight.

If the Earth’s axis was in its current position during the Ice Age, Eastern Siberia would have experienced the exact same solar cycles it does today. It would have been plunged into total darkness for months at a time during the winter. Without the moderating influence of the Atlantic Gulf Stream—which does not reach the North Pacific—the ambient air temperature would have plummeted to negative sixty or negative seventy degrees Celsius.

In such conditions, the ground becomes "hard permafrost." It freezes to a depth of hundreds of meters. Even in summer, the thaw would be superficial, creating a waterlogged bog of moss and lichen, not the nutrient-rich, deep-rooted grasses required by horses and bison.

The Aridity Hypothesis asks us to believe that these massive animals lived in a polar desert that was colder than modern Siberia, in total darkness for half the year, eating grass that somehow grew on frozen rock. This is the paradox. The biology proves that the region had a longer growing season and a warmer winter than the current latitude permits. The absence of ice was not just due to a lack of snow; it was due to an excess of heat relative to the latitude.

1.2 Beyond Dryness: The Temperature Delta

The second failure of the atmospheric model lies in the "Temperature Delta," or the inexplicable difference in thermal energy between the Atlantic and Pacific sectors.

The Earth is a rotating sphere. Generally speaking, climate is "zonal," meaning that regions at the same latitude receive the same amount of solar radiation. If the planet cools down—whether due to volcanic ash blocking the sun or a reduction in greenhouse gases—that cooling should be roughly symmetrical. If the forty-fifth parallel in France freezes, the forty-fifth parallel in Asia should also freeze.

Yet, the Last Glacial Maximum displays a massive asymmetry. In the North Atlantic sector (Europe and North America), the cold was catastrophic. The ice sheets advanced as far south as New York City and Berlin. These regions were effectively relocated to the climate zone of the modern Arctic.

Simultaneously, in the North Pacific sector (Siberia and Alaska), the climate remained temperate enough to support grazing megafauna. Some proxy data, such as the analysis of beetle carapaces and root systems found in the permafrost, suggests that summer temperatures in Beringia were actually higher than they are today.

Atmospheric scientists attempt to explain this by modeling complex changes in the Jet Stream and ocean currents. They argue that a diverted Gulf Stream could have frozen Europe while a different wind pattern warmed Alaska. While ocean currents are powerful, they are not magic. They operate within the laws of thermodynamics. There is no known mechanism that can take a region sitting right next to the North Pole (as Siberia is in the current map) and keep it warm enough for wild horses while the other side of the pole is frozen solid. The heat budget of the planet does not allow for such extreme localization of heat retention without a change in geometry.

This leads us to the "Geometric Solution."

If we accept that the Spin North Pole was shifted fifteen degrees toward Greenland, the "Temperature Delta" vanishes. We no longer need to invent miraculous wind patterns.

In this new configuration:

1. Europe and North America are physically shifted fifteen degrees North. They enter the polar zone. Their glaciation is not an anomaly; it is the expected result of their new latitude.

2. Siberia and Alaska are physically shifted fifteen degrees South. They enter the temperate zone. The "Warm Siberia" is not a paradox; it is the expected result of being further from the pole.

By moving the axis, we align the geography with the temperature data. We respect the Aridity Hypothesis—it was indeed dry—but we add the necessary thermal component. It was dry and temperate, creating the perfect conditions for the steppe grasslands. The atmospheric explanations fail because they try to solve a geometry problem with meteorology. They are trying to explain why the back of the house is cold while the front is warm, without realizing that the house has turned around.