Perceptions of climate and climate science in the 18th century were heavily influenced by the political and social atmosphere of the time. With this in mind, I do not think the historical actors that Golinski and Jonkovic describe display a greater humility than the climate scientists from last week in exploring the metaphysical impossibility of constraining the atmosphere in a laboratory. The historical actors from this week’s readings framed their understanding and studies of the atmosphere in the context of the knowledge and ideologies that characterized the time period they lived in. Both Golinksi and Jonkovic talk about how meteorological studies and attitudes toward climate were influenced by social and political attitudes. For example, Jonkovic talks about how natural philosophers attempted to find rational explanations for meteorological phenomena as a means to dissuade uprisings and social unrest, not because they were driven by scientific curiosity. Clearly, these philosophers’ understandings of the atmosphere were not limited by humility, but rather shaped by their ideological and political motives. Similarly, the tense religious atmosphere of this time period influenced perceptions of meteorology and led many people to attribute meteorological phenomena to acts of God rather than rational occurrences of nature. Again, I do not consider this to be a display of humility, but rather a lack of understanding and a choice to adopt a theological framework over a scientific one. And like Golinski talks about, people during this time period did not refrain from trying to “tame” the environment. Settlers in the American colonies prided themselves on the notion that they could civilize their environment and assert domination over it. This seems to be the opposite of humility.