Somehow I find it hard to believe that EVERYTHING can be attributed to geography. Surely there must be other variables involved.
North America is similar to Europe's geography around the Great Lakes area (Mediteranean + North Atlantic = Great Lakes + Hudson Bay). Sure, it is a little cold in Canada, but not much colder than northern Germany and southern Sweden and Norway (all successful European areas). Look at the Vikings for example. They thrived in cold weather, even venturing as far north as Greenland. North America also has very good farming soil (and I'm sure around the Great Lakes area also). There are plenty of deer in North America; they should have been perfect for sustaining food. I can't think of any milk-producing animals from North America which could have served an equivalent function as Old World cows and goats, but is milk really THAT important? Milk isn't a requirement for life; water should have worked just fine (and there is plenty of that around the Great Lakes). I'm surprised there were no somewhat advanced civilizations around the Great Lakes area.
Plus, no one should ever underestimate the power of religion. Christianity told the Europeans to go out to all areas and spread the religion. It also didn't hold nature in a very high regard compared to most non-Christian/pagan religions.
I think European success can be attributed mostly to religion and the numerous wars which took place between, generally, north and south europe. Both of those are social influences, not geographic.