Uponnothing and Left Outside have already dismantled Richard Littlejohn's feeble attempts to understand the difference between weather and climate, in which he concludes that weather and climate must be the same thing, even though there are different words for them:
Ah, say the 'experts', there's a difference between 'weather' and 'climate'. They are forced to resort to semantics to sustain their insistence that the science is settled, even though they are all sitting there shivering like brass monkeys. They'd still cling to their belief in man-made warming if Hell froze over.
Luckily for us, we know for sure that hell hasn't frozen over, because Littlejohn has yet to write anything funny ever. But what I want to focus on in particular is what is either genuine coarse stupidity or wilful ignorance. After all, the reason why there are different words for different things is often because they're different. Climate means something very different from weather, although they both talk about rain, and sun, and so on. Either this is too hard for Littlejohn to understand - and I do wonder sometimes - or he's decided that he can dismiss what anyone else says on the basis that they're simply using two different words that really mean the same thing.
Using Littlejohn's reasoning, there's no difference other than semantics between a cat and a dog - if I think they're the same thing, then they're the same thing, and it's only people trying to pull the wool over our eyes who try to use different words to describe them. It's the same kind of idea that people use to tell you that the BNP are left wing, or that apples are hovercraft - I think this, therefore no matter what other people say, or what the words actually mean, it doesn't matter. I'm aware that using a dictionary definition in any argument automatically makes you lose (I can't remember whose law this is, but I'm fairly pleased it exists) but such definitions exist for a reason: different words mean different things.
Or, to put it another way, you could say that if I call Richard Littlejohn an ignorant twat, I'm actually calling him a genius. Because there's no difference, other than semantics, between 'ignorant twat' and 'genius', they're completely interchangeable things.
I'm pretty sure that's what Littlejohn tells himself, anyway.