> I read the whole article and I don't see anywhere the author mixed up weather and climate. The article was about climate change but the examples were all abo

> I read the whole article and I don't see anywhere the author mixed up weather and climate. The article was about climate change but the examples were all about short term (few years) change in prevailing weather: "One of the key factors in the fall of Cleopatra, for example, appears to have been the massive eruption of the Okmok volcano", "Eruptions help explain other major changes", "Global weather systems such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, a cycle of warm and cold periods in the Pacific Ocean, have had huge and unpredictable consequences for human civilisation". After these examples, the article goes on to say "Shifting climate patterns in the distant past are responsible for..." which certainly seems to be true, but none of the examples were about shifting climate patterns. I think the author didn't know what they were talking about, and that's a shame when good examples exist. > You underestimated how important modern technology and scienctific advancement is to historical discoveries. Quite the opposite; the first words of my comment were "This is a good article about historiography".