...there hasn’t been enough movement in the plate tectonics model(s) to account for the glaciation pattern. Hence, the snowball Earth idea. Kirschvink also has something called “true polar wander” as a way (alternative) to account for these same anomalous patterns. The problem of course is, continental drift was an absurdly superficial idea, and just because it’s called plate tectonics and uses some igneous rock deposits and assumptions about magnetic field orientation in them doesn’t improve it at all.
The plates move. It’s measurable. You deny that?
I wasn't implying any plate tectonics were involved. The plates don't float around nilly-willy on the crust like the scientists had imagined. The MOVEMENT (such as the easily identifiable matchup of the coastlines between the American Continent and the African continent) is caused by 'growth' of the planet, much as marking two spots on a balloon, then inflating it to maximum size. The spots move away from each other, but they are really not 'moving' at all.
(I am sure you know all this, but I am stating it so others understand where I am coming from)
What I was originally referring to was a change in the oscillation of the planet's rotation, which led to the current POLAR regions being at or near the 'equator' while the areas like Canada were actually the 'polar area'.