While I can't speak to the veracity of the statistics proposed in this article, I just thought of at least a small but not infinitesimal factor amongst thousands of factors, even barring flood basalts and CO2 concentration versus atmospheric density as well as deforestation aside.
It is predicated upon a simple axiom - the availability of thermostats. Known scientists back in the day were largely European and typically situated in high popuIation city centres as a result of readily accessible trade goods, no doubt a necessity for scientific paraphernalia.
While sounding something of a leap, think how important being situated next to a Trade Nexus would have been to buy what must have been IargeIy uncommon items. And where would these major cities be located? In moderate climates, typically next to the shore.
But of course that means that, with modern technology, people from colder climates have better access to it, too, thus cancelling out those from warmer climates, right? Except if you were to graph out number of people living at the equator all the way to those living at either poIe, it's not exactly a normal distribution. In other words, there are more people living in the equator than double those in the South PoIe or otherwise, which logically makes sense.
I'm sure there are a few logical flaws here and there but, a, it was fun to write, and b, more often than not, I find scientists often times disregarding the simplest notions. It's always got to coincide with someone else's paper, as though the notion of peer review makes it exempt from critique. Literally, some of the most pivotal scientific discoveries were built upon the premise that the foundations built prior were slightly if not completely fauIty. So the idea that any idea should hold inscrutable scientific authority is, quite frankly, unscientific by nature.
Like how covid was reported to have an r nought of 0.8 in the UK during lockdown and, given that some countries were literally on lockdown for about 2 yrs at that point,sporting an incubation period of 2 wks would have equated to 0.8 ^ 52 wks * 2 yrs / 2 wks incubation * 100% of people infected with covid. For UK, a country with about 70 mil ppI, presuming 50% initial infection, that would equate to 320 ppI after a 2 yr lockdown, assuming retransmission isn't a substantial statistical likelihood, as was posited by most major medical journals.
Sorry for the Iength. Bored.
While I can't speak to the veracity of the statistics proposed in this article, I just thought of at least a small but not infinitesimal factor amongst thousands of factors, even barring flood basalts and CO2 concentration versus atmospheric density as well as deforestation aside.
It is predicated upon a simple axiom - the availability of thermostats. Known scientists back in the day were largely European and typically situated in high popuIation city centres as a result of readily accessible trade goods, no doubt a necessity for scientific paraphernalia.
While sounding something of a leap, think how important being situated next to a Trade Nexus would have been to buy what must have been IargeIy uncommon items. And where would these major cities be located? In moderate climates, typically next to the shore.
But of course that means that, with modern technology, people from colder climates have better access to it, too, thus cancelling out those from warmer climates, right? Except if you were to graph out number of people living at the equator all the way to those living at either poIe, it's not exactly a normal distribution. In other words, there are more people living in the equator than double those in the South PoIe or otherwise, which logically makes sense.
I'm sure there are a few logical flaws here and there but, a, it was fun to write, and b, more often than not, I find scientists often times disregarding the simplest notions. It's always got to coincide with someone else's paper, as though the notion of peer review makes it exempt from critique. Literally, some of the most pivotal scientific discoveries were built upon the premise that the foundations built prior were slightly if not completely fauIty.
Like how covid was reported to have an r nought of 0.8 in the UK during lockdown and, given that some countries were literally on lockdown for about 2 yrs at that point,sporting an incubation period of 2 wks would have equated to 0.8 ^ 52 wks * 2 yrs / 2 wks incubation * 100% of people infected with covid. For UK, a country with about 70 mil ppI, presuming 50% initial infection, that would equate to 320 ppI after a 2 yr lockdown, assuming retransmission isn't a substantial statistical likelihood, as was posited by most major medical journals.
Sorry for the Iength. Bored.
While I can't speak to the veracity of the statistics proposed in this article, I just thought of at least a small but not infinitesimal factor amongst thousands of factors, even barring flood basalts and CO2 concentration versus atmospheric density as well as deforestation aside.
It is predicated upon a simple axiom - the availability of thermostats. Known scientists back in the day were largely European and typically situated in high popuIation city centres as a result of readily accessible trade goods, no doubt a necessity for scientific paraphernalia.
While sounding something of a leap, think how important being situated next to a Trade Nexus would have been to buy what must have been IargeIy uncommon items. And where would these major cities be located? In moderate climates, typically next to the shore.
But of course that means that, with modern technology, people from colder climates have better access to it, too, thus cancelling out those from warmer climates, right? Except if you were to graph out number of people living at the equator all the way to those living at either poIe, it's not exactly a normal distribution. In other words, there are more people living in the equator than double those in the South PoIe or otherwise, which logically makes sense.
I'm sure there are a few logical flaws here and there but, a, it was fun to write, and b, more often than not, I find scientists often times disregarding the simplest notions. It's always got to coincide with someone else's paper, as though the notion of peer review makes it exempt from critique. Literally, some of the most pivotal scientific discoveries were built upon the premise that the foundations built prior were slightly if not completely fauIty.