The Difference Between Weather And Climate

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Difference Between Weather And Climate

  1. ledag says:

    After burning some people, and torturing many others, the church had no problem adapting its narrative to the observed facts, namely that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa. It only took a couple hundred years. No regrets, no apologies.
    Either way, it was god who created heaven and earth, the sun and the stars, and you can’t argue with that. Or else, you’ll be excommunicated, i.e. cancelled.

    Tony, on a personal note, I’ve been following your work for years, and in my view, you’re playing a historical role in the battle for truth, the integrity of science, and the future of our civilization. No less. I mean it.

    I’d like to thank you, Kirye, and many other good people who’ve been taking active part in this decade long war.
    I do my humble part, which consists of talking about these things to people around me, and contributing the few dollars that I can afford to your team, and to a couple other websites who do a great job.

    Jeff Bezos would need more than the ten billion dollars he pledged to promote the notion of Climate Crisis, simply because it’s pretty hard (and very expensive, apparently) to convince people to trust a crazy and baseless narrative, instead of their own eyes. It can work, for some time, and with some people (e.g. Chuck Windsor), but in the long run, the cost of maintenance for such a belief system is too high, and not sustainable. Some countries who fell for this folly already pay the price.
    Substituting reality with ideology didn’t work even in the Soviet Union, where for over seventy years, the communist party had an absolute monopoly on everything in society, including the media, academia, the labor market, capital, schools, the police, and the court system. People just laughed at the authorities, shrugged, or simply didn’t cooperate.

    2+2=4, not 5
    This is a fact, and as such it will always be true, even if only one person recognizes it, and in principle, even if no one does.

    People react strongly to threats, and they are easily driven by fear, but they also have the capacity to identify facts, and recognize the truth that stems from them.
    Many people need to be told what to think, but most of us don’t like to be lied to.

    • Gator says:

      Point of clarification…

      The Inquisitions and other atrocities committed by Christians, or in the name of God, are not reflective of the teachings of Christ. They were initiated by worried sovereigns, and not the church, the church got involved in order to stop the killings.

      Anyone not living under a rock for the past 30 years will likely recognize this famous scene from Monty Python’s Flying Circus. In these sketches three scarlet-clad, inept inquisitors torture their victims with such instruments as pillows and comfy chairs. The whole thing is funny because the audience knows full well that the Spanish Inquisition was neither inept nor comfortable, but ruthless, intolerant, and deadly. One need not have read Edgar Allan Poe’s The Pit and the Pendulum to have heard of the dark dungeons, sadistic churchmen, and excruciating tortures of the Spanish Inquisition. The rack, the iron maiden, the bonfires on which the Catholic Church dumped its enemies by the millions: These are all familiar icons of the Spanish Inquisition set firmly into our culture.

      This image of the Spanish Inquisition is a useful one for those who have little love for the Catholic Church. Anyone wishing to beat the Church about the head and shoulders will not tarry long before grabbing two favorite clubs: the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. I have dealt with the Crusades in a previous issue of Crisis (see “The Real History of the Crusades,” April 2002). Now on to the other club.

      In order to understand the Spanish Inquisition, which began in the late 15th century, we must look briefly at its predecessor, the medieval Inquisition. Before we do, though, it’s worth pointing out that the medieval world was not the modern world. For medieval people, religion was not something one just did at church. It was their science, their philosophy, their politics, their identity, and their hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community. Medieval Europeans were not alone in this view. It was shared by numerous cultures around the world. The modern practice of universal religious toleration is itself quite new and uniquely Western.

      Secular and ecclesiastical leaders in medieval Europe approached heresy in different ways. Roman law equated heresy with treason. Why? Because kingship was God-given, thus making heresy an inherent challenge to royal authority. Heretics divided people, causing unrest and rebellion. No Christian doubted that God would punish a community that allowed heresy to take root and spread. Kings and commoners, therefore, had good reason to find and destroy heretics wherever they found them — and they did so with gusto.

      For medieval people, religion was not something one just did at church. It was their science, their philosophy, their politics, their identity, and their hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

      One of the most enduring myths of the Inquisition is that it was a tool of oppression imposed on unwilling Europeans by a power-hungry Church. Nothing could be more wrong. In truth, the Inquisition brought order, justice, and compassion to combat rampant secular and popular persecutions of heretics. When the people of a village rounded up a suspected heretic and brought him before the local lord, how was he to be judged? How could an illiterate layman determine if the accused’s beliefs were heretical or not? And how were witnesses to be heard and examined?

      The medieval Inquisition began in 1184 when Pope Lucius III sent a list of heresies to Europe’s bishops and commanded them to take an active role in determining whether those accused of heresy were, in fact, guilty. Rather than relying on secular courts, local lords, or just mobs, bishops were to see to it that accused heretics in their dioceses were examined by knowledgeable churchmen using Roman laws of evidence. In other words, they were to “inquire” — thus, the term “inquisition.”

      From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep that had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring those sheep back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

      • Vegieman says:

        Nice to hear from you.

      • ledag says:


        I’m sorry, but you are factually wrong –
        The normal way to conduct an “Inquiry” (Investigation in today’s terminology) in those days was torture. Pretty much everyone who had power used it, everywhere.
        Authorities routinely use torture in many countries toady.

        Back then, Spain, France and other states considered themselves as Catholic States. In other words, the state and church were entangled to a point where it is fair to say that they had practically merged. To get an idea of how this works, just look at present days Iran, officially named The Islamic Republic of Iran.

        Back then, popes gave titles such as “Defender of the faith” (Latin Fidei Defensor), to the sovereign of England, and “Christianissimus” (most Christian) to the king of France. Spanish kings were called “Most Catholic Majesties” (Reyes Catolicos).
        The Spanish Inquisition tortured tens of thousands of Jews, Catholics who were suspected of being undercover Jews or Muslims, and others, whom neither the church nor the monarchy favored.

        Out of this large number of people, thousands died during the harsh and often cruel interrogation process, or were executed after their torturers extorted “confessions” from them.
        Needless to say that oftentimes, clergymen with sadistic tendencies were attracted to the kind of work that the Spanish Inquisition offered to them, and others just made money from it.

        On a different note, referring to people as “sheep”, and to groups of people as “flock”, doesn’t mean that you respect them, or their rights, and it doesn’t mean you love them either. It simply means that you think you own them, or that you have the right to command them in the name of someone who owns them, which you think you represent.
        Generally speaking, being a sheep is not a good idea, regardless of who the shepherd is. We all know what happens to real sheep, eventually.

        • Gator says:

          I can claim to be a camel. But my two legs gives me away.

          The point that my factually correct post made was that it was not the church, and definitely not the teachings of Christ, that lead to torturing people. The royals derived their power through divine ordination, and if the people refused to put their faith in God, then the royals had no claim to power. So the royals intimidated the masses into keeping the faith. Once the leaders of the church took over the process from the royals, torture stopped.

          Ever hear “History is always written by the winners”? The Spanish lost to the British, and the non-Catholic Brits wrote the history, making false claims about Catholics. Meanwhile witches were being burned elsewhere by others. As you started to acknowledge, it was not the church running the show, it was the royals.

  2. arn says:

    It’s not just most children today have not experienced such “dreadfull” winters.

    Most children of yesterday have not experienced such “dreadfull” winters
    (as most already lived in warmer regions)
    But nobody bothered to ask those who do not have to tell uninterressting stories(who do not remember irrellevant changes//changes that do not fit).
    Nobody ever bothered to ask parents in the 70ies wether they experienced
    significantly less snow when they were children(which they probably did)
    as there was no agenda.

    If AGW was real yesterdays children would not talk about dreadful winters but
    about beaches,properties etc that were all lost to sea level rise.
    They don’t talk about this because this AGW scenario never happened.
    It only exists virtually as adjusted data and one of many doomsday predictions
    but not in the real world where massive melt + expansion of warming oceans
    would have changed the coastline in a dramatic way.

    The biggest trick(besides social engineering,double speak,fear and only focussing on events that fit the agenda))
    that is used is the knowledge about cyclical changes and anomalies,
    just as educated powerhungry charlatans did centuries ago when they claimed to have godlike powers and that they can make the sun disappear,while in fact it was just knowledge about saros cycles which was not(and still is not) known by most of the people.

  3. G W Smith says:

    The left will always find (invent) a crisis to scare people into submission. They are obsessed with controlling other people’s lives. Truth to them is an obstacle and an enemy to their ends, so they use trickery and deceit to gain power over others. It’s been that way since the days of Adam. And their victims are always the ignorant and the foolish.

    • GreyGeek says:

      Even now, as the covid “pandemic” has waned down, those who love to control the masses are appealing to the karen’s and ken’s to get hysterical about “Delta” covid. One scam follows another, and there is no end to the authoritarians ability to create other synthetic crises, just like they created synthetic temperatures to support their narragive.

  4. G W Smith says:

    PS– I hope you two are planning on having some kids. We need more good people in this world.

  5. RegretLeft says:

    Thanks – I am not the researcher that you are – but I almost found the winters with more than 50 inches of snow in New York City – National Weather Service (quite distinct from NOAA) but the page would not load:

    As I recall, Central Park NYC – has only recorded winters with 50 or more inches of snow on three years – all after 2005 – I believe they were 2009,10, and 2011. (they were 3 successive years).

    This year we got close – 46 inches. A remarkably snowy February. About 5 continuous weeks of snow cover which is extremely rare – in our generally fairly wet but cold/warm (melt) winters. For what it’s worth, I have lived in the area almost 60 years – and the climate has not changed a great deal – around a mean. Who can forget the dreadfully hot summer of 1988 (the year of the famous Hanson Congressional testimony)?! – Never a summer close to that since. Some of the hottest temps ever recorded in the area – July 2011 – 106, 107F – that’s 10 years ago – maybe 5,6 days over 100F since then.

    The scam depends (in part) on people NOT having good memories.

  6. Peter Carroll says:

    What is wrong with NASA? How can a supposedly scientific organization publish such rubbish as in paragraph three, in support of climate change?
    May, seem, some, is indicative of a possible, children in snow packed winters, nothing but anecdotal evidence?
    Climate is the weather over time, AND SPACE? Oh really?
    I’m trying to work out whether their echo chamber has a leak, or their tin foil hats are on backwards.

  7. tom0mason says:

    You’re making it far too complex and difficult! It’s like this —
    Cold period are weather effects.
    Hot periods, drought, and deluges (no matter how short) are evidence of ‘anthropological climate change’.
    Simple really.

  8. ledag says:

    Speaking of people such as Jess Bezos, who are “concerned” about global warming, and “committed” to help stop it, I tried to find an answer to a very simple question, which is:
    How Much Fuel Does a Virgin Galactic Flight Consume?
    Amazingly, no numbers to be found out there, and the closest information I found was an article on WSJ dating back to 2014 that was written by Virgin Galactic’s CEO, in which he lauds his boss Richard Branson, and the “progress made” in reducing the “carbon footprint” of that space flight system, which consists of the space craft itself and an aircraft carrier.
    Somehow, this doesn’t appear to be a fuel efficient setup.

    As far as I understand, CO2 does not drive the climate on Earth, and never did, and it even makes plants grow better, so whatever amount of this gas mankind emits is not a problem.
    Branson and Bezos burn huge amounts of fuel just to satisfy their egos, and produce lots of CO2 doing so, while spending huge amounts of money to promote anti-CO2 propaganda that climate alarmists generate, and this requires serious public scrutiny.
    At this time, Bezos and Branson seem to be the world’s top two climate hypocrites, with Barack and Michelle Obama close behind, since their purchase of an oceanfront property in Martha’s vineyard that FEMA designates as located in a (quote) “Special Flood Hazard Zone”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *