Comment by eggy

I am not saying the premise is BS, but like all engineering and science you create a hypothesis for a phenomenon, in this case the pole shift, to address it, and you create the formulas and parameters to be included and used. As others have pointed out, there are potentially a lot of other variables to be considered that they possibly did not include. To further test the hypothesis, they need to sharpen their pencils for round two or three. Some off the top of my head: if there are higher drought areas or more wetter areas due to climate change, did they consider that shift? Location, position, and magnitude of snow-melt basins, glacial melt and polar cap changes, earth moving human activities on scale by all nations (China making artificial islands, etc.), earth moving due to climate change - floods, drought, large volcanic eruptions, underwater tectonic activity - all an ongoing process), etc...

The father/scientist of the article should not put his pencil down just yet. Very interesting hypothesis so far.