Is it Warm in Here, Or is it Just Me?

I love History, I expect you do too.

Back in school, History was all dates and numbers. I hated it. Then I began to read Historical fiction, and I fell in love.
This is because History is three parts mystery and one part fantasy. This is especially true if you research centuries back. The truth becomes elusive because:

a) History is written by the winners. I once wrote a book about the two lost princes in the Tower of London (THE CRIMSON CROWN.) I ended up with twenty four books on my desk . (This was pre-internet.) They were in two even piles. Twelve said their uncle Richard Third done them in. Twelve said he didn't. Dealer's choice. (I used to be one of Josephine Tey's converts. But now I think Richard done it.)

and b) The earlier in history, the fewer people who could write about it. Myths and folk tales only give us glimpses of what was or might have been.

and c) Few people who could write took the time to describe the everyday commonplace facts of their lives. We still don't know for sure what kind of underwear females in the Regency era wore. So we are certainly in the dark about simpler facts earlier in history.

Historical details are hard to discover, and events of the slow moving kind are near impossible.
I bring this up because the weather is so dramatically weird this year, and everyone is saying it's Global Warming, caused by us. Warm here, cold there, and stormy where it oughtn't to be.
I don't doubt we're doing vast harm. I saw the movie, and think all those gasses we're releasing are certainly doing a number on our lives and our planet.
But the warming part?

I always wondered why the richest men in medieval Europe, kings of great realms, built huge stone houses for themselves. I am a castle louse: wind me up and I infest a castle. I love them. But castles are cold. Even in summer. No amount of tapestries on the walls can warm them. And they didn't have many fireplaces. Few people love comfort as much s Royals do. I never could understand why great kings spent a fortune happily building themselves vast igloos.

Ancient Kings in Scandinavia had long low wooden houses where many people lived and the hearths were roaring all winter. So why did the later kings of Europe lock themselves up in refrigerated castles while their serfs were comfy in their little thatched huts, huddled up next to their pigs?
It wasn't just for defense. There's evidence that it simply wasn't as cold back then.
I've read articles!
Carbon dated wood from the era shows the life of trees and hint that it wasn't always frigid in winter.
One article I read showed illustrations from early Books of Hours that depict nobles in front of a castle, cavorting in their shirt sleeves, as it were, filmy gowns and light tunics, tossing snow balls at each other, gleeful and amused by the snow.
Later books picture them swaddled in furs.
It has been postulated that there was a little ice age hundreds (not millions) of years past.
And so a little era of warming makes sense too.

The earth is a living thing, always changing. I worry that one day our beautiful planet will finally notice the itching from all the pestilent little creatures on it's skin and will wriggle and stretch and shake us off. We can help by stopping ourselves from poisoning it. We can save myriad creatures from extinction, including ourselves.
But History also implies that our planet is ever changing, no matter what we do.

So should we be terrified by our changing weather? Or has this, at least, happened before?
I wish I knew.

What do you think?

Comments

[Teresa]

Richard didn't do it - not directly *g*. He just neglected them enough so someone else (Buckingham) could do the dirty deed.

As for the weather, I believe yes, we're dong harm but ALSO that there have been cycles like this before. As you said - the planet is a living, breathing thing :-)

[Maggie]

Well, they say there's nothing new under the sun. :)

I don't believe we'll ever know the whole inconvenient truth about global warming in our lifetime, but we should still make every effort to restrict our pollution and find new sources of energy. Can't go wrong there.

And as a resident of Maine, I'm absolutely delighted to slip less frequently on snow and ice, altho the snowmobile and ski resort people are VERY unhappy.

As for stone castles--durable? Fire-proof? Lots of rocks around and lots of serfs to mortar them together? Woods maintained so the lord could hunt and punish all the poor poachers? Were there just more trees in Scandanavia? I guess we'll never know.

I think of early New England, which was loaded with clapboard houses, and the south, which had brick. The prevailing wisdom from my Tidewater Virginia friend was that bricks came as ballast with ships and N.E. had so many trees they had to be cleared for farming. Who knows? Thanks for making me think, Edith!

[margaret]

Today, with temperatures starting out in the single digits (4 degrees), global warming seems like a myth.

A fortnight ago, when it was 70 degrees in January, my opinion was entirely different!

It is interesting that in recent months and weeks, my part of New England has been frequently breaking "warmest day" records that were decades, even a century old.

But I assume that the polar ice caps were still intact way back on those earlier "warmest days," which doesn't seem to be the case now, alas.

Thanks, Edith, for a very thought-provoking commentary!

(I believe Richard was involved--somehow--and despite covering-up left enough questions to provide plenty of material for propagandists. He had too much to gain from his nephews' demise!)

[susanna in alabama]

I agree with Edith and Maggie that doing what we reasonably can to reduce pollution is a good thing. I don't think we should restructure society for a "maybe possibly" global warming trend. When you build your career on something (like a theory that global warming is happening), it's tough to be objective about the situation. I'm afraid that's where a lot of politicians and scientists are. They have a stake in being right that could cloud their search for truth. Follow the money.

I think it's mostly a normal cycle, that the earth is pretty good at cleansing itself but is subject to macrotrends way beyond our ability to cause or fix. Obviously some forms of pollution are very harmful - I think of tales of London during the late 1800s, a mix of fog, smoke and factory effluents. I'm very glad most of that is cleaned up in first world countries and support cleaning it up elsewhere. But those problems are fairly localized, and mostly harmful to the health of the local population. I don't think they're capable of changing the trajectory of earth's long-term climate trends.

[Edith]

Mmm, sorry Teresa, but I still think he done it.
(a wry grin goes here.)

And sorry All, for the lack of dazzling illustrations this time. My dazzling illustrator went up to the country this weekend. I Have to learn how to do it myself!

[Edith]

Maggie,

I'm so pleased you like this blog. I didn't know if it was literary enough. But it does show how difficult it is to know what History was.

[Edith]

Margaret,

Thanks for the back up on Uncle Richard. It still is almost my favorite Shakespearean play. But though I don't believe he was wicked, I do think he was pragmatic. Kings have to be.

[Susan Wilbanks]

I believe in following the money, too, but it seems to me that if you do so, it's only the people with strong financial or political interest in maintaining the status quo who deny that humans are causing global warming.

I'm not saying there aren't complex natural cycles involved. I'm familiar with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed it, along with earlier shifts like the Younger Dryas, because this topic fascinates me. Maybe we're only exacerbating a natural warming trend, but isn't that bad enough? And even if our dependence on fossil fuels *isn't* warming the planet, I feel like we *still* need to conserve and change, because it's not good to be so dependent on a finite resource that's disproportionately concentrated in a politically unstable region.

Sorry to get so passionate, but this is the single issue that worries me the most when I look at the world that, God willing, I've got another 50 years or so left to live in, and that my daughter and *her* children will inherit. It breaks my heart to see the damage we're inflicting on this beautiful planet, and it frustrates me that there's so little I can do to change anything as one measly person with one measly vote.

[Edith]

Oh Susan, I didn't want to upset you. I agree it may be the greatest crisis of our lives. --how many crises have we now? Let me not count the ways.
I was just riffing on the unknowability of History.

And Susanah in Alabama - I agree with you too.

The short of it is that I wanted to posit a theory and show how we don't and maybe can't learn from History, because of how little we really know of it.

[Patricia Rice]

Nice thought provoking post for a snowy winter day! I'm all in favor of global warming in this part of the country. I want heat! I

f one must be paranoid, global warming is a good place to start. We've been harming our planet since Og lit the first fire, and really, it's time we gave back a little. But I want glass houses, not stone, and warmth, please.

Although I think El Nino is supposed to be blamed for the weird weather this year. Just in case you need a name for the weather paranoia.

[Janga]

Edith, I think it was Cleanth Brooks who said, "History is a fiction often retold." Your blog made me remember that quote.

I agree with those who believe that regardless of the truth of the global warming theory, we need to be more environmentally responsible individually and collectively. Maybe I am just an incurable glass-half-full person, but when I listen to my students (mostly 18-24) and my even younger cousins and grands demonstrate their green consciousness and take action to influence others, I have hope of some real changes over the next years.

[Susan Wilbanks]

I'm sorry I let myself get political. I know this isn't the time or the place, and I should've taken a few more deep breaths before I let myself hit the post button.

I try so hard not to air my political views in public, writing-related forums, but I'm fairly politically active--at least, I follow issues and candidates closely, I donate to candidates and causes that matter to me, and I've volunteered for get-out-the-vote efforts at the last two presidential elections. And I'm finding that I have trouble playing apolitical at all convincingly--it's shutting off too large a facet of my personality. But if I'm ever published, I feel like I *need* to learn. :-/

[Jessica]

History is definitely written by the winners, that's for sure. And the Tudors were past masters at the art of propaganda, whispering, and slanting the story to their side. Whether or not he killed the princes, small wonder Richard got everything hung on him, including a (non-existent) hunchback and sorcery.

As for global warming, I think the earth is warming, but I'm not sure humans are the cause...a part, yes, but no way are they all. As you all have observed, the earth is much bigger than us and has cycles 100s, 1000s, and millions of years old/long. We're just a pimple on the bum of geologic time :).

Margaret -- yes, there is evidence the polar caps have been melted before. I'm not sure where I read it (or I'd find the link for you) but I'm pretty sure.

Between Richard's place in history (that's still argued about, 500 years later), and all the debate over global warming today, kind of makes you wonder how people will look back at us in 500 years -- what they won't see because it's lost in the mists of time.

[CM]

I thought it was pretty clear that there was a medieval warm period, followed by a small ice age in the middle ages, when agriculture & so forth all changed drastically.

I also think it's pretty clear that we're in a warming trend today, at least as compared to 100 years ago.

The global warming problem is a scientific one wrapped around an economic one, both of which are uncertain. Are we warming? What will be the consequences if we warm? And what's the best way to deal with the consequences--prevention or mitigation? How do we best position ourselves to either prevent or mitigate?

Unfortunately, global warming has turned into a political problem, and this means that the underpinnings of the problem--the science, and the economics--are largely avoided in public discourse. I'm not trying to take sides, here; both sides do it.

It's very disturbing to me that people who scoff at global warming are more likely to support gun rights, and people who fear it are more likely to support abortion rights. Guns & abortion aren't really issues that are open to logical discourse; they're deeply emotional issues, and usually, you can't even really argue about them beyond tossing slogans back and forth. Global warming is different. It's based on fact and inference, evidence and observation, statistics and likelihoods. Or at least it should be. Except most people, including the leaders of our country on both sides of the fence, aren't thinking about facts and uncertainty; they're thinking about global warming with their gut.

That scares me more than any of the possible ramifications of climate change.

[Sherrie Holmes]

From Sherrie:
Only Edith can take such a (usually) mundane subject as the weather and make it interesting in her own unique way!

Washington is known as "the Evergreen State" because here in the Pacific Northwest we get lots of rain, have a mild marine climate, and our soil is so rich that the moment the sun peeks from behind a cloud, there's a riot of green growth, with plants pushing and shoving each other in a race to see who can grow the fastest and tallest.

But in 2006 we had one of the worst years I can remember. Summer was unseasonably hot, and I was forced to set up temporary shade for my vegetable garden because the blazing sun was cooking the plants.

This fall and winter we broke all precipitation records for the months of October and December, sometimes getting as much as 18" of rain in 36 hours. And still the rains come. And the snow. This is not typical for us Washingtonians and we don't like it.

I firmly believe global warning is a very real danger, and I believe poor stewardship of our planet is the primary cause. I wonder what historians will write about our era 200-300 years from now, and what their conclusions will be? At least in this day and age, the writing of history is not left to the victors to skew to their advantage.

[Sherrie Holmes]

OK, I put a little *g* (grin)character at the end of my previous post, to lighten it up a little and not offend anyone, but TypePad deleted it. Forgot you can't use the little caret symbols that enclose the *g*. So please mentally insert a *g* at the end of my post. *ggggg*

[Laura Vivanco]

I'm with Susan on this issue. I'm biting my tongue and trying to control my fingers, because I've got into unproductive debates about it in the past, but I too find it very upsetting to think about and I don't believe that a little bit of tinkering round the edges is going to be nearly enough.

Fossil fuels represent C02 that's been stored for millenia - we're burning them up and releasing that C02 in pretty much a matter of centuries and it's bound to have an effect. Of course the world has been through cycles with regards to the weather, but they've always had huge impacts on the world's flora and fauna, and human civilisation as we know it is really very fragile.

[Edith]

Forgive me if I offended.

Honest, I didn't want to get political on this issue, or take either side, or posit anything but the thought that History hasn't much to teach us on global warming because being History, we can never be sure of the facts.

Living as we do here, milions of people on a slender finger of land poking out into the Atlantic, we worry about climate changes, believe me. And we try to predict the future too, so all bets are in, and we pay attention to them all.

I am earnestly sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

[Teresa]

Edith - I don't think you ruffled feathers. Seems like you sparked a debate, that's all. Nothing wrong with a debate.

Re: Richard - we'll agree to disagree *g*. Buckingham too had much to gain (though he blew it in the end - divine justice).

As for the climate - I should've added, regular cycle or not, I still believe in conservation etc. We try to do our part.

[susanna in alabama]

No harm done, Edith! It just goes to show that the Wench readers are smart, thoughtful people who pay attention to what's around them. And that romance readers cut across the political spectrum!

Which makes me think of a question for the Wenches: Are politics and commercial fiction poor bedfellows? Susan Wilbanks notes that she feels she has to keep her politics low-key in public so as not to harm her writing career. I confess to similar concerns myself. How do you express or suppress your social/political views when writing? And do you feel that expressing them outside of your work - say, on this site, your author websites, etc - is inappropriate or harmful? Do you feel it would be okay to be very active politically in your private life as long as there is a demarcation between that and your fiction?

I generally try not to know the politics of writers, actors, musicians, etc that I enjoy, because it decidedly hampers my enjoyment of their work. But if they keep the two separate, I can deal usually. I don't *want* them to feel they shouldn't be politically active (although when someone like George Clooney starts thinking he's a legitimate choice to negotiate politically with other countries...).

Some historical romance authors have had very politically active women in their books - espousing women's rights, etc. No problem as long as it's historically accurate, and the politics don't take over the story. But often a modern sensibility overtakes the history. You all have said before that's a struggle.

Any thoughts?

[Susan Wilbanks]

No harm done at all, Edith! I think we managed to have a civil discussion with people from differing perspectives, which is all too rare these days.

Like Susanna, I don't go looking for the political affiliations of writers, actors, athletes, etc. whose work I enjoy. But when I find out one of them holds political views opposing mine, it only turns me off their work if I feel like their books/movies are thinly veiled political allegories and/or if they can't express their views without questioning the intelligence, patriotism, and integrity of everyone on the other side.

[Laura Vivanco]

If I liked the author's books I probably wouldn't care about their her/his views unless (a) as Susan said, they came through strongly in the novels or (b) the author's personal beliefs were so extreme I felt obliged to boycott the books (e.g. if the author used the proceeds of book sales to fund terrorism).

I wouldn't expect characters in historical novels to engage with contemporary political issues and I'd expect them to have what would now be considered much more 'right-wing' views (e.g. on gender politics, social class). There might be some exceptions (e.g. suffragettes).

But re blogging, it seems to me that most issues are political in the broad sense. Maybe people don't notice so much if what they read is written from a perspective they take for granted but some authors discuss their diets and that's linked to issues such as body-image, fatism etc. People blog about children, but that might annoy the child-free, upset those who have fertility problems or provoke a rant from those who believe that the world is over-populated. Discuss your Christmas decorations and you might upset people who don't believe in Christmas or those who do, but think it should be celebrated without pagan symbols etc, and then there are questions about the consumerisation of Christmas. Discuss pets and that could be seen as shading into issues about animal rights. Talk about food, and then there's organic farming, food miles, local food, GM crops... Politics is really very, very hard to avoid.

[Gretchen F]

I think everyone has the right to an opinion and usually it is different than mine! I don't care what an author's or actor's views are, like Laura, unless it becomes intrusive in the work. But also, I am annoyed when an actor speaks out with their opinion as if their opinion is worth more than , say, mine.(authors don't seem as inclined to do this,thank you). I'm not saying they shouldn't express their opinion. Just quit acting as if the endorsement of an actor should make me want to vote for their candidate. What does an actor know about real life? Would they take the opinion of, say, an old lady school teacher? Like moi? Not likley, but I'll bet I know more about "the people's" needs than they ever will....snort.

[Edith]

Everyone! Go nip up to Pat Rice's new blog! I think she aces this question of political opinions and the author's world.
As for me?
I still Go Pogo!
(note: if you get this reference you are ancient too.)