Scan barcode
florisw's review against another edition
2.0
I’ve been a long-time fan of Simon Clark’s YouTube channel. I think he’s an excellent communicator, being able to boil down complicated but also very relevant topics into funny and engaging 10-20 minute explainers. He’s also not shy about incorporating popular, gaming, and fantasy culture in his Sci-Comm work, which I greatly appreciate. A lot of that wit and engaging tone is transferred to this book-length explainer of atmospheric science and its history. In fact, Firmament chapters read a little bit like extended YouTube videos. Yes, there are some clever throwbacks woven through them, but ultimately they work as nine standalone stories. At times, the jokes felt a bit weak, like they were missing a funny graphic to hit home, or a trademark whisper into the clip-on mic. But overall, the easy pace and tone of the book makes it as easy to read as binging his videos is.
However: it is not a book for me. The main reason for this is the fact that the stories about the history of this science – pretty much half of the book – are incredibly simplistic. The positivistic framing of this history is sometimes cringeworthy, as yet another individual is described as having revolutionised the way meteorology is done, getting one step closer to the truth that we know today. Clark may say that the history of climate science is a global one, but including two Japanese scientists amongst a swathe of your standard white men from Europe or North America does not convince me of this. All these men (and one or two women) are usually introduced as been “brave”, “pioneering”, “brilliant”, “remarkable”, “ingenious”, who alone make “great discoveries” and inventions to advance the field of meteorology. With “one foot in the past and another in a future that few others could see”, our understandings of the atmosphere apparently take “great leaps forward” because of them.
What irks me the most is the way Clark treats the discipline of history. He is clearly aware of the limits of his expertise: “As I am a physicist by training, not a biologist, I will simple say here…” (33); “I don’t want to go into much more detail on oceans and their dynamics, partly because it is not my area of expertise,…” (95). Yet he doesn’t seem to think twice about making sweeping remarks about the history of science which sometimes goes counter to what historians have written on a certain topic. I am certainly not trying to gatekeep here – I don’t think Clark is trespassing in an area where he shouldn’t be. In fact, I’m glad to see he spent so much time on it in a book like this. But in choosing to base his story on the types of sources he does, and not engaging with thoughtful historical work (and I don’t mean Brian Fagan, whom he quotes at a certain point), he is telling a story that in my opinion is old-fashioned and downright misleading. Why is biology treated as a field a physicist can’t enter without permission, but history is apparently open for anyone to waltz in and just “tell it like it was”?
There are a few bright spots in his historical narrative. He notes how much scientific work in the early modern period relied on the activities of European nations and their colonies, making science inextricable from factors like the slave trade, colonial oppression, and social-Darwinist politics. He rightfully recognises the “debt” that modern science bears with to these activities (76). Another example is his recognition of the way scientific institutionalisation marginalised women and people of colour. A passage on Eunice Foote and women in science since the Enlightenment is particularly good. His references to colonial violence or social inequality are welcome not only for the way they help counter traditional narratives of scientific exceptionalism (ones which he unfortunately also helps perpetuate), but also just provide more richness and context to the developments he talks about.
I want to clarify that for most people, this will easily be a 3+/5 book. My Goodreads score just reflects how the book resonated with me.
However: it is not a book for me. The main reason for this is the fact that the stories about the history of this science – pretty much half of the book – are incredibly simplistic. The positivistic framing of this history is sometimes cringeworthy, as yet another individual is described as having revolutionised the way meteorology is done, getting one step closer to the truth that we know today. Clark may say that the history of climate science is a global one, but including two Japanese scientists amongst a swathe of your standard white men from Europe or North America does not convince me of this. All these men (and one or two women) are usually introduced as been “brave”, “pioneering”, “brilliant”, “remarkable”, “ingenious”, who alone make “great discoveries” and inventions to advance the field of meteorology. With “one foot in the past and another in a future that few others could see”, our understandings of the atmosphere apparently take “great leaps forward” because of them.
What irks me the most is the way Clark treats the discipline of history. He is clearly aware of the limits of his expertise: “As I am a physicist by training, not a biologist, I will simple say here…” (33); “I don’t want to go into much more detail on oceans and their dynamics, partly because it is not my area of expertise,…” (95). Yet he doesn’t seem to think twice about making sweeping remarks about the history of science which sometimes goes counter to what historians have written on a certain topic. I am certainly not trying to gatekeep here – I don’t think Clark is trespassing in an area where he shouldn’t be. In fact, I’m glad to see he spent so much time on it in a book like this. But in choosing to base his story on the types of sources he does, and not engaging with thoughtful historical work (and I don’t mean Brian Fagan, whom he quotes at a certain point), he is telling a story that in my opinion is old-fashioned and downright misleading. Why is biology treated as a field a physicist can’t enter without permission, but history is apparently open for anyone to waltz in and just “tell it like it was”?
There are a few bright spots in his historical narrative. He notes how much scientific work in the early modern period relied on the activities of European nations and their colonies, making science inextricable from factors like the slave trade, colonial oppression, and social-Darwinist politics. He rightfully recognises the “debt” that modern science bears with to these activities (76). Another example is his recognition of the way scientific institutionalisation marginalised women and people of colour. A passage on Eunice Foote and women in science since the Enlightenment is particularly good. His references to colonial violence or social inequality are welcome not only for the way they help counter traditional narratives of scientific exceptionalism (ones which he unfortunately also helps perpetuate), but also just provide more richness and context to the developments he talks about.
I want to clarify that for most people, this will easily be a 3+/5 book. My Goodreads score just reflects how the book resonated with me.
edwin1's review against another edition
5.0
A couple of notes before my thoughts on the book:
1) I received my pre-order copy a week before release for no obvious reason,
2) I have been watching the author's youtube videos and occasionally twitch streams for almost 4 years now.
This book is not so much an explanation of finer points of the causes of weather and such like, (not that it really advertised as such) but a history of the development of atmospheric sciences. Many important characters in the canon of scientific thought appear, and many who, as so often happens, were forgotten despite their important work. The author makes sure to note that the societal circumstances of both science and scientist have a large impact on the history and development of science, but on a similar note I would have liked a little more discussion of the changing philosophy of science over its history to accompany this. There are some equations given, but most of them are illustrative more than explanatory. The content is well conceived and structured.
I found the tone occasionally a little informal for my liking in this medium - which is interesting, because over the last year or so I've noticed the opposite in the author's youtube videos - I suspect that the style of writing a book and writing youtube scripts interfere with one another. I also occasionally found some of the metaphors a little unnatural.
Overall, a very good, fairly quick read. Would recommend.
1) I received my pre-order copy a week before release for no obvious reason,
2) I have been watching the author's youtube videos and occasionally twitch streams for almost 4 years now.
This book is not so much an explanation of finer points of the causes of weather and such like, (not that it really advertised as such) but a history of the development of atmospheric sciences. Many important characters in the canon of scientific thought appear, and many who, as so often happens, were forgotten despite their important work. The author makes sure to note that the societal circumstances of both science and scientist have a large impact on the history and development of science, but on a similar note I would have liked a little more discussion of the changing philosophy of science over its history to accompany this. There are some equations given, but most of them are illustrative more than explanatory. The content is well conceived and structured.
I found the tone occasionally a little informal for my liking in this medium - which is interesting, because over the last year or so I've noticed the opposite in the author's youtube videos - I suspect that the style of writing a book and writing youtube scripts interfere with one another. I also occasionally found some of the metaphors a little unnatural.
Overall, a very good, fairly quick read. Would recommend.
va1entina's review against another edition
3.0
Un libro ben fatto, che consiglio perchè può essere un buon punto di partenza per capire i meccanismi fondamentali che regolano la nostra atmosfera.
Quello che mi è piaciuto sicuramente di più e il mondo semplice e diretto con cui l'autore spiega alcuni concetti, utilizzando spesso esempi che sono estremamente chiari e comprensibili dal grande pubblico.
Ho trovato l'epilogo un po' slegato dal resto della trattazione, ma per il resto coinvolgente e ben scritto!
Quello che mi è piaciuto sicuramente di più e il mondo semplice e diretto con cui l'autore spiega alcuni concetti, utilizzando spesso esempi che sono estremamente chiari e comprensibili dal grande pubblico.
Ho trovato l'epilogo un po' slegato dal resto della trattazione, ma per il resto coinvolgente e ben scritto!
constanzazu's review
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
I'm glad to say it reads as if Simon was explaining it in video. Since I'm just starting a master degree in physical oceanography all the chapters were friendly introductions to what I'll be studying later. He knows how to keep you entretained while you learn about the beautiful giants that's our earth's atmosphere.