Secular history played as the catalyst to modern climate study. Before the enlightenment, most natural phenomena could be hand-waved away by saying that X god or God willed it. Such as the events of famine and severe storms caused to "punish" sinners. Or a more recent example, meteors. These were often seen as omens (sign from a higher power) In the 18th and 19th centuries. As scientific practices began to formalize, the study of such events moved into more organized, empirical realms. Offering explanations and reasoning behind them. However, the public still viewed these events through a lens of myth and superstition, often interpreting them in ways that fit their existing cultural narratives. I think these two ideas, of scientific knowledge accepted by the scientists and scientific knowledge accepted by the public is very important. Since the majority of the public just didn't care for or understand the scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena. The science that was offered wasn't that concrete either, such as the weather journal (which most people kept). But I also think that the explanation of natural events is the most concrete way to separate the church from the government. Since if you could predict when a storm/famine/freeze occurs it, in a way, makes you seem like a deity. So for a group of people (the state) to have that kind of power over their people is extremely useful. I think also Jan Goliski's argument/idea of sensibility and climate pathology is really important to secular history and furthering the separation between church and state. I believe that having physical ailments be explained through something other then a deity punishing leads to further inquiry of what actually causes sickness and plague (furthering the time that the enlightenment is relevant). But overall, the texts have the central idea of having human control over human problems. This is to say that your problems are caused by you. But how you bring those problems into fruition is what the enlightenment was trying to answer.