Swartz’s article talks about how In 1856, Eunice Foote’s paper about the experiment, “Circumstances Affecting the Heat of the Sun’s Rays,“ concluded that “An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature.” Though her work, such as with jars, would not be fully recognized until later. Reidy’s article looks at the “life and letters” of overlooked deaths and experiences with the infancy of the environment and atmosphere. Overall the debate that climate science is still in its infancy, in my opinion, is true. Reidy’s article really emphasizes that the idea of the world being round, with an atmosphere and impacted by the sun’s rays, all are quite new ideas. We as humans did not comprehend the “other” factors above us until very recently in human history. Therefore, climate science is still in its infancy. Although, I do not think that is too young to be unreliable. Science is an unpacking variable in the works of our understanding of the things around us. It is a helping hand in defining our understanding of how the world works, and like all new science, it is exciting and holds possibilities. Eunice Foote’s work I believe helped in really understanding fossil fuels and the effects on global warming.
Even if scientists have known about the climate-related dangers for a long time, politically, it is a whole different story. Politics deals with the social and idealistic piece of the social pie. Science deals with delicate factors, which society as we most all know, sometimes does not like to hear or take in. Therefore, since climate-related dangers and their informants are still in their infancy, it will take much longer for politics to get involved.