Science? More like pseudoscience.
As someone trained in the sciences, there are three things I find major fault with in this flash: the first is that you present theories in your flash, but you lack any sort accepted research/documentation to back them up. For this to be a true representation of a scientific theory, you either have to have data from the historical record that has been peer reviewed and accepted, or you have to have an experimental hypothesis that can be replicated by other researchers in the field. Looking through several reference databases verifies that your data has not been accepted as valid. The reference sources that you do list can at best be considered pseudoscience; they are theories presented without valid scientific evidence to back them up, and have had their methodology debunked by scientific peers, either through citing faults in the methodology or disproving the results outright via such research methods as geological surveying, modeling, etc. Your representation of pole shift as fact/accepted theory is an example of this. While the scientific community does accept the theory of "pole wandering" as a normal geologic process, there is no such body of research verifying the "pole shift" hypothesis. Much of what is claimed by various pole shift hypothesis is easily disproven with mathematics. Many predictions based on said evidence have also not come to pass: the catastrophe predicted for 5 May 2000 by Richard Noone, for example. Claims made by pole shift proponents that cataclysmic destruction has resulted have never been verified in the geological or archaeological record.
That leads to the second major fault: passing this information off as science when it belongs in the realm of the spiritual. Because many of the data sources you rely on come from imaginative sources, such as psychic readings, said data cannot be verified or disproven. Anyone trained in the scientific method knows that if it is impossible to design an experiment/observation that disproves a hypothesis, said hypothesis belongs in the realm of the spiritual, and not the realm of the scientific. The finding of the clay tablets that you mention is not described at all in any scientific journal of merit, dubious or otherwise. It is highly susceptible that such tablets exist, as they have not been made available for examination by the scientific community at large. If the tablets cannot be made available for peer review, it is impossible to design a theory to disprove what they purport to say.
The final major fault is your lace of reference materials. Your bibliography flashed on the screen rapidly, but I believe I counted seven sources? And at least one of them was a television program. Not even the least competent of scientists would cite a form of entertainment as a valid source of information/data. A typical peer-reviewed paper will have anywhere from 40-60 sources listed. Given the broad scope of information you present, I would expect you should have a lot more sources to verify the data. Again, this would be considered poor form in the scientific community.
If you labeled your flash as metaphysics, mythology, new-age spirituality, etc., I would take it seriously and consider this flash to be appropriate for the informative category. Labeling the flash as science makes it suitable for an entertainment category. It is one thing to have a spiritual belief based on faith. Basing a scientific theory on faith and presenting said theory as fact is another matter entirely.
I do not find fault with any of the technical aspects of the flash, except that it is paced too rapidly. For all I know, this was done purposely so that the viewer has less time to actually think and process the information presented; this is simply a theory (and one I can design an experiment/observation to disprove, making the theory valid to the realm of science.) If you are to pass something off as science, I'd advise you to return to the basics of the scientific method and make sure you understand how it works.
