Both the climate scientists and the historical actors described by Golinski and Janković are and were theorizing about concepts that were in relative infancy and speculation. I would say that the climate scientists we read last week are at least well-intentioned in their aims, but appear overwhelmed by all the factors to be taken into account to incorporate human activity into climate change models. Their argument appears to be an acknowledgment of all that is unknown more than finite impossibility. Some of the climate theorists that Janković describes, however, assert their claims through the devaluation of others, particularly in a classed fashion. He describes the way Descartes and other theorists positioned themselves as enlightened individuals who knew the truth unlike the superstitious and lowly common people, which is the antithesis of humility. The thinkers that Golinski introduces to us are also generally lacking in humility as their theories were climate determinist and privileged Britain as the ideal climate. Their theories harken back to thinkers from the first week that argued for the merit of temperate climates, which in turn made the people who lived there unimpulsive, thereby promoting social harmony and progress. Some theories of the time also lend themselves to a very separatist, nation-centric view of the world, such as the idea that each country had its own air quality and thus it is better for individuals to stay within the country they were born for their entire life. Further, climate theorists viewed it as dangerous for Europeans to travel outside their homelands, but paradoxically, that they were uniquely intelligent due to the climate and thereby equipped to be a beacon of progress to the places they colonized, particularly America. To sum, Golinski describes climate theorists that fit very well into Eurocentric and determinist thinking that created the framework for Britain to be viewed as the peak of civilization. Something that particularly struck me was Golinkski’s description of America as a “project,” in his discussion of how the British thought that they were civilizing the New World via deforestation and draining marshes. It is such a succinct but effective way to explain how this particular set of climate theories were based in domination and extraction.