A common theme throughout many of the readings we have looked at is this separation between humans and their environment/nature. Part of this may be traced to colonial notions of nature, that it is something to be dominated and used for profit, not necessarily something that we are a part of and are dependent on. It is interesting to consider why historical climatology has stagnated in understanding humans as significantly impacting climate. Though we have not always exerted the climatic force we do now, perhaps part of what has kept us from considering human factors in climate modeling is that we feel fundamentally separate from it. Or maybe we still feel that the climate is so much bigger than us that our actions are insignificant by comparison. One of Degroot's ideas that stuck with me was his description that the success of crops has a lot to do with land management practices rather than solely the climate. We are neither fully at the mercy of our environment or conquerors that have surpassed the powers of nature. Humans always have a certain amount of agency when a (climate) crisis strikes. This theme also shines through in Behringer’s description of witch hunts and pogroms which evolved into questioning power structures. I think that is what I take most from the Little Ice Age, that we are not faced with an almighty force but to a certain degree the consequences of our actions. It reminds me of Vergès’s argument that climate is made into a scapegoat instead of power structures. It isn’t climate itself that is the source of our misfortune but the inability to support populations in times of crisis. I would also like to add that while Behringer may not redeem himself for the way he portrayed the role of the British in the Potato Famine, he does acknowledge the way the French monarchy favored the profits of the wealthy over the starvation of the common people, thus there lis at least one instance where he considers how power shapes the conditions people live under. In response to the video, I would probably use Figure 8 from Mauelshagen to illustrate that if we let the climate warm more naturally, using the average ppm increase over 1750-1850, it would take 884 years from now to reach the same level of carbon dioxide that we have today. We have achieved levels of carbon dioxide in a couple centuries of what would more “naturally” happen in a millenium. As pointed out in our discussion, the issue is not increased warmth itself but that it is happening at such a fast rate.