The Weather Channel responded to a tweet from President Trump on global warming by highlighting the difference between climate and weather.
“There is a difference between #weather and #climate,” the channel tweeted, adding that “Short-term #cold snaps will continue to occur in a warming climate.”
“2017 will likely be a top three warmest year on record for the globe,” the tweet concluded.
Read more at The Hill.
{Matzav.com}
So why don’t they send out same tweet differentiating weather from climate every time we have a heat wave or hurricane?
The liberals changed the name to Climate Change / Climate Accord when they realized that nobody’s buying into the Global Warming hoax. The climate has changed since the world was created. So whom is the “weather channel” trying to fool? Climate Change will not change Trump’s opinion on this nonsense.
This is a fact. We must observe questions about our climate climatology. It is a popular future to consider we did not make error.
As the guy above states, we can indeed challenge the liberal faction that wants to discuss the idea of a nominal talk about “climate change”. It is actually climatology change. A climate accord can be a discussion.
In all, wouldn’t it be neat if our future commanders in chief knew more about science? A good college science background will not make such a discussion and might want more reading. I myself do think that the college dignity of this office can benefit from a science education.
Good work.
Junk science.
Too much charity is being donated to these stupid ignorant scientists. Why do fools donate money upon their death for research?
The distinction is simple: if the weather is hot, it’s climate; if it’s cold, it’s weather.
Weather and Climate are “Tzvei dinim”, Weather Channel Explains After Trump Tweet
The Weather Channel has adopted the “Brisker method” of “Tzvei dinim” (“two laws”): A Talmudic law can be shown to consist of two or more distinct components. These two overlapping, but distinct, components, can together explain a set of outcomes which could not be explained by a single logical principle.