GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/01/30/why-dont-advocates-of-global-warming-making-weather-forecasts/trackback/

  1. Typo in your headline

    Comment by rusty — January 30, 2013 @ 9:20 am - January 30, 2013

  2. Just how cold is it in LA?

    I know temps are relative but I saw an LA weatherman wearing a parka in almost 60 degree weather complaining about the bitter cold. My kids don’t even break out their parkas until it is consistently in the single digits and teens. My mother in law who lives in south Alabama would be wearing the winter coat in 60 degree temps herself.

    I do find it interesting that California is experiencing cold temps, but here in NH it has been pretty darn mild. We are even supposed to get to almost 50 degrees today.

    Comment by Just Me — January 30, 2013 @ 11:13 am - January 30, 2013

  3. I’ll consider taking the Global Warming cloud seriously when they give up their private jets and massive luxury homes. Which will be never.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2013 @ 11:15 am - January 30, 2013

  4. Well, weather forecasting is short range and, really, like, there is no time to build consensus science to carry the forecast, like, forward, don’t you know, because of, like, the shortage of time.

    Besides, weather and climate are totally unrelated unless you need them to be for your consensus science practicality which is OK because it serves a useful purpose and only creationists and conservatives don’t understand the nuance of the weather ambiance on the practicality of the influence of climate on weather which can only be known to a certain crowd of consensus scientists all of whom have better insights into the real reality of what is coming our way as opposed to those who don’t understand what the meaning of “is” is.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 30, 2013 @ 11:18 am - January 30, 2013

  5. Haven’t you heard a thousand times already that “weather isn’t climate”? I love how they trot out that expression every time there is a severe cold snap, yet every time there is a hot day, it is supposed to offer more proof of global warming.

    Comment by Kurt — January 30, 2013 @ 11:26 am - January 30, 2013

  6. I love how they trot out that expression every time there is a severe cold snap, yet every time there is a hot day, it is supposed to offer more proof of global warming.

    This is a pet peeve. When days are hot or a season is unseasonably warm, the global warming crowd is pointing their fingers and screaming “See, see we are ruining the earth!” But have an unseasonably cold season and they start talking about how climate and weather aren’t the same and that one season doesn’t matter it is the “trend” blah blah blah.

    My personal feeling is climate has always fluctuated-there was a flipping mini ice age less than 1,000 years ago. Before the industrial revolution-so I am curious what humans did to cause that or influence the warm up.

    Climate changes but that doesn’t mean humans are the cause. I think I would just rather see a focus on being good stewards of the earth than the doom and gloom hyperscare tactics of the global warming crowd.

    Comment by Just Me — January 30, 2013 @ 11:38 am - January 30, 2013

  7. It’s always struck me as *interesting* that the only acceptable solution to global warming is to give more money and power to the Government. Isn’t that strange?

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2013 @ 11:48 am - January 30, 2013

  8. AGW is basically a cult. Like all liberal ideas it is not based on facts, data, numbers or science. It is based on emotion. That being said, you have to give Al Gorezeera snaps for promoting a hoax that has made him incredibly rich. Like every good shyster, he can explain away everything, including that rare moment when a toadie of the MFM confronts him on what appears to be monumental hypocrisy (selling Current TV to a network that is owned and operated by Big Middle East Oil):

    “LAUER: Yet even as you sold to Al Jazeera, you in the book blast other television news programs, saying this: “Virtually every news and political commentary program on television is sponsored in part by oil, coal, and gas companies–not just during campaign seasons, but all the time, year in and year out–with messages designed to soothe and reassure the audience that everything is fine, the global environment is not threatened.” And the critics jumped, and they said, here’s the guy who just sold to Al Jazeera, which gets an undetermined amount of funding from the country of Qatar, which gets its money from oil reserves. Isn’t there a contradiction in that?

    GORE: I certainly understand that criticism. I disagree with it. I think Al Jazeera has, obviously, long since established itself as a really distinguished and effective news gathering organization. And by the way, its climate coverage has been far more extensive and high-quality than any of the networks here…”

    Comment by runningrn — January 30, 2013 @ 1:16 pm - January 30, 2013

  9. Sorry Republicans, this is one of those issues you need to let go of. 99 out of a 100 ligitamate scientists agree that human activity is slowly leading to a warmer planet. The sky isn’t falling, we’re not all going to catch on fire, but it is definatly happening. And you don’t even need to understand complex climateology anymore, its just physics.

    You ever notice how when its really cloudy out the temprature doesn’t fluctuate as much throughout the evening? Think of that cloud as a blanket for your town. When human beings are taking things out of the earth (fossil fuels) and expelling them into the atmosphere, the atmosphere gets a little denser and thicker, basic physics. As I said before, I don’t buy into any doomsday scenarios that people are pushing, but I feel like even in my short lifetime I have noticed a difference. I’m from Montana, and remember going to Glacier national park and being blown away that there was these giant mountains of ice in the middle of August. Now they’re considerably smaller (some are gone altogether) than they were just 20 years ago.

    Could this be attributed to a natural warming cycle? Sure, but is everyone in the Republican party so naive to think that burning carbon and depositing it into the atmoshphere is going to yield zero negative effects? Are burning those fossil fuels an absolute nessecity to human intellectual and societal evolution? Yes, so losing some icebergs and glaciers is worth it. But let’s not be satisfied with the system we have now if with some extra effort and investments we can figure out a way to keep driving progress, and not ruin the world while we do it.

    The stupidest thing coming from Republicans on this issue is that they beleive what they are told by scientists that have been hired by conservative think tanks and oil companies to push an agenda. This guy on #8 calls it a cult, with all of these evel scientists on Al Gore’s side. It’s so ridiculous and pathetic, and absolutley backwards. How could it be that all of these objective scientists working for universities and government agencies reach one conclusion, and all the others working for ExxonMobil reach another? It’s money. Those 99 out of 100 scientists that I mentioned above (figurativly speaking), you know what they have on their record? Cell phones, spaceships, the printing press, et cetera et cetara, it’s time to start trusting them, or go be Amish because you don’t beleive science can identify and solve problems.

    Comment by Aaron — January 30, 2013 @ 1:53 pm - January 30, 2013

  10. Some left wing crackpot (Hefner) on MSLSD stated yesterday that the high murder rate in Chicago was due to global warming. Let me see, the murder rate in most of the US is going down when the threat of global warming increased over the past two decades. Is Hefner deranged, or does she even realize the words coming from her mouth?

    Comment by davinci — January 30, 2013 @ 2:25 pm - January 30, 2013

  11. Kurt:

    I am a meteorologist by profession, so I have some knowledge about weather. Weather is defined as what is occurring now into the near future. Climate is weather over a substantial period of time. In the USA, they have 30 year climate normals. But you can also use climate as what type of temperatures, precipitation, and vegetation you have at one location. For example, the Koppen classification utilizes temperatures and precip to give a certain climate classification based upon the vegetation at a specific location. Hope this clarifies any terminology.

    Comment by davinci — January 30, 2013 @ 2:30 pm - January 30, 2013

  12. It’s 75 degrees in Memphis.

    For what will unfortunately not be the last time:

    CLIMATE. IS. NOT. THE. SAME. THING. AS. WEATHER.

    Comment by Evan — January 30, 2013 @ 2:30 pm - January 30, 2013

  13. Sorry Republicans, this is one of those issues you need to let go of. 99 out of a 100 ligitamate scientists agree that human activity is slowly leading to a warmer planet.

    Let us put this in the simplest possible terms: the fossil record makes clear that the earth has been through, not one, not two, but SEVERAL warming and cooling trends well before humans came along and well afterward.

    Which means that your 99 of 100 scientists that insist that the earth’s temperature has never changed, that natural forces cannot cause a temperature change, and that the only thing that can cause a temperature change is human beings are wrong.

    That’s the first problem solved.

    And you don’t even need to understand complex climateology anymore, its just physics.

    Because complex climatology has shown that the earth has gone through several cycles of warming and cooling seemingly all by itself and without human intervention; therefore, it must be ignored in favor of physics.

    That’s the second problem solved.

    I’m from Montana, and remember going to Glacier national park and being blown away that there was these giant mountains of ice in the middle of August. Now they’re considerably smaller (some are gone altogether) than they were just 20 years ago.

    Well, of course.

    Being a typical liberal with your self-centered and narcissistic worldview, of course you agree that a) your perceptions are absolutely accurate and b) that the only thing that could have caused any change whatsoever is the action of humans.

    Thus, you’re quite unaware of this.

    From up to 10 million years ago, Montana had a tropical climate similar to the present Caribbean. Â The red soil that lies on top of the Renova Formation has the chemical and mineral composition of modern laterites, or tropical soils. The tropical climate coincided with the huge lava flows that built the Columbia Plateau. Some of the lava flows dammed rivers, forming lakes. Laterites deposited in these lakes are sandwiched between black basalt and contain perfectly preserved fossils of tropical leaves similar to those found in Florida and the Caribbean. Streams began to flow during the tropical period.

    That’s the third problem solved.

    Moreover, as we’re quite aware, the AGW cult of which you are a member inexplicably doesn’t really care how much CERTAIN people pollute as long as they’re not whitey.

    And that leads us to this:

    How could it be that all of these objective scientists working for universities and government agencies reach one conclusion, and all the others working for ExxonMobil reach another?

    Because they are funded by left-wing statists like yourself who want to punish whitey and oil companies, and thus slant the science.

    Now you may choke on your own logic. Your insistence is that scientists always slant research to support whoever funds them. Since AGW “research” is funded by leftist groups, environmental groups, and leftists like Al Gore who seek to profit from it by selling “carbon credits” and documentaries, AGW science is slanted and thus invalid.

    Now, you can either answer these points or you can go off on a screaming fit and try to blame Republicans.

    Which really was your point in the first place. You don’t know anything about “global warming” and haven’t bothered to educate yourself; all you’re doing is repeating a talking point and trying to demonize Republicans with it. You haven’t done any research, you haven’t cited any articles, you haven’t even followed basic logic; all you’re doing is trying to scream that Republicans are bad.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2013 @ 2:31 pm - January 30, 2013

  14. I’m from Montana, and remember going to Glacier national park and being blown away that there was these giant mountains of ice in the middle of August. Now they’re considerably smaller (some are gone altogether) than they were just 20 years ago.

    I wonder how many Europeans could go see glacial ice back during the little ice age, and did cow farts cause that one to end?

    As for global warming-whether it is man made or not, the upside is currently producing far more food than ever. Of course the idiot in the white house and his EPA want us to take a huge portion of it and turn it into fuel so food still remains very expensive.

    Comment by Just Me — January 30, 2013 @ 4:30 pm - January 30, 2013

  15. I don’t know if anthropogenic global warming is real or not, but what I do know is that, if it is real, it isn’t enough of a catastrophe to warrant giving the government more power.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — January 30, 2013 @ 5:13 pm - January 30, 2013

  16. Aaron,

    I direct your attention to Timing of Atmospheric CO-2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III report published in Science.

    The report shows that increases of CO-2 may follow rising temperatures rather than precede them. Melting glacial ice releases trapped CO-2 which causes the temperature of the earth to rise further.

    This does not deny global warming, but it throws cold water on human activity as a determinant in what is a natural process. The “Termination III” period was about 240,000 years ago.

    If global warming or cooling is a problem, there are two ways to deal with it.

    1.) If man is a contributing cause, then men should/must curtail activities that promote the climate change.

    2.) If global warming or cooling is a natural process without clear, scientific proof that man’s activity is an important contributing factor, man must rethink his living conditions to adapt to the ice or heat, depending on which natural process is in progress.

    The first call for action to be taken is based on either hard science or a “better safe than sorry” appeal to emotion.

    The second call to action is based on hard science.

    The job of science is to be skeptical and overcome the skepticism by proof that can be replicated by independent scientists who recreate and verify the proof.

    If anyone is fervently denying that global warming or global cooling is a natural process, I am not aware of them. The Progressives have done a good job of belittling the skeptics of man-caused global warming by calling them “global warming deniers.” This effectively communicates that such people are fundamentally stupid.

    To my knowledge, no regular contributor on this site has ever denied the natural process of global warming or cooling.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 30, 2013 @ 5:28 pm - January 30, 2013

  17. The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data.’

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2013 @ 5:55 pm - January 30, 2013

  18. Bwhahaha! Even David Letterman calls Gore out on his hypocrisy! From Breitbart:

    LETTERMAN: Gas and oil. So you’re selling this television network to a gas and oil supported emirate. It’s not an emirate, it’s an independent country.

    GORE: One of the emirates. It’s independent. And the closest ally of the U.S. In the Arab world. Our fleet is there.

    LETTERMAN: Isn’t that one of the problems with global warming, our dependence on petroleum-producing countries?

    GORE: Yes, it is. And they have…

    LETTERMAN: So you, Al Gore, are doing business with this country that’s enabling your ultimate foe of climate change.

    GORE: I think I understand what you’re getting at, Dave, (Laughter) but I disagree with it. First of all, they have ambitious plans to develop renewables in the region. There’s a visionary plan to take solar energy and wind energy from the Middle East and North Africa to Western Europe. Again, the network that they founded has become a very widely respected news-gathering organization, including on climate issues.

    Yeah, the USE is going to develop green energy, and I have a bridge I can sell you in Brooklyn!

    Comment by runningrn — January 30, 2013 @ 6:47 pm - January 30, 2013

  19. @ Aaron #9: >>it’s time to start trusting them, or go be Amish because you don’t beleive science can identify and solve problems.<<

    Hoo boy. Where do I start?

    I believe the Amish don't live without electricity, as least a good percent of the denominations do without it. And I would bet that they're more 'environmentally' friendly than those that do live with electricity simply because of their way of life.

    Now I know that what I quoted was meant as a jab it's your little way of saying "Join us or be left behind and looked at as fools." It kinda backfired on ya since, indeed, if we (those don't take AGW as seriously as you and your friends) adopt the Amish way of life we wont 'ruin the world' – not because we don't believe science can identify and solve problems, but because it would REALLY be a lot more 'greener' than modern day living. Yup.

    Comment by John — January 30, 2013 @ 9:48 pm - January 30, 2013

  20. Why is climate change an ideological issue? It’s an empirical question: either the climate is changing or it’s not, and if it is, either human activities are a major cause of climate change or they are not. By a vast majority, the people who actually know something about this, the scientific community, answer both questions in the affirmative. Now, we can certainly have a debate over what the proper policy response is, but the idea that climate change is some sort of liberal hoax is, like the denial of evolution, an example of the post-modern “all viewpoints are equal regardless of the evidence” reasoning that conservatives profess to loathe.

    Comment by Brubeck — January 31, 2013 @ 12:22 am - January 31, 2013

  21. Why is climate change an ideological issue?

    Because leftists are using it as a cudgel to expand Government power and take away individual freedom.

    Duh.

    And when did it suddenly become wrong to be skeptical when Government was generating hysteria about a crisis in order to expand its power and take away freedom? Especially since the Global Warming community:

    1. Aren’t behaving like they really believe there’s a crisis when they’re flying around in private jets and living in massive luxury homes (Al Gore, RFK Jr, Arianna Huffington, James Hansen, every Hollywood celebrity, Washington politician, and UN bureaucrat).

    2. Refuses to debate global warming skeptics, but instead efforts to silence them.

    3. Is caught repeatedly fudging the data and using climate models that are explicitly designed to produce a warming result.

    4. Refuses to release raw climate data for skeptics to examine, as NASA has in defiance of multiple FOIA requests.

    5. Are using Global Warming as a means to enrich their personal fortunes.

    Given these facts, skepticism is how any reasonable person *should* respond to environmental fanatics who hype Global Warming as a means to expand their own power.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2013 @ 6:07 am - January 31, 2013

  22. By a vast majority, the people who actually know something about this, the scientific community, answer both questions in the affirmative

    Meanwhile,
    In reality>, many scientists blow huge holesin theories and falsified data.

    Amazing what happens when the data isn’t tampered with. The greens lose the battle of science.

    Comment by The_Livewire — January 31, 2013 @ 7:47 am - January 31, 2013

  23. #9: “99 out of a 100 ligitamate scientists agree that human activity is slowly leading to a warmer planet.”–Aaron

    #20: “It’s an empirical question: either the climate is changing or it’s not, and if it is, either human activities are a major cause of climate change or they are not. By a vast majority, the people who actually know something about this, the scientific community, answer both questions in the affirmative.”–Brubeck

    Aaron & Brubeck, for the lack of a better term, BULLSH*T.

    1100+ peer reviewed research papers supporting skeptical arguments: http://bit.ly/KPIqUz

    100+ eminent scientists including Nobel winners and IPCC lead authors contesting Anthropogenic Global Warming who wrote the U.N.: http://1.usa.gov/XLBhL1

    31,000+ scientists disavowing AGW, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s:
    http://www.petitionproject.org

    700+ scientists worldwide disavowed AGW & signed onto US Senate report: http://1.usa.gov/11abnc0

    100+ scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming, March 30, 2009: http://bit.ly/Tfnekk
    [ Note: Many of the scientists are current and former UN IPCC reviewers and some have reversed their views on man-made warming and are now skeptical. Also note Nobel Laureate for Physics Dr. Ivar Giaever signed. Giaever endorsed Obama for President in an October 29, 2008 letter.]

    Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy: http://on.wsj.com/yqTUBR

    Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT systematically destroys every CAGW argument here:
    http://bit.ly/wWIUpy

    The list goes on and on. The insufferable talking point that “virtually every scientist” supports the theory of AGW is a flat out lie and anyone repeating it as fact (e.g., Aaron & Brubeck) is nothing more than a left-wing sheep, obediently bleating whatever nonsense he’s been fed by the Democratic Party.

    Comment by Sean A — January 31, 2013 @ 8:54 am - January 31, 2013

  24. It is naive and misguided to believe that scientists are 1.) infallible and 2.) incorruptible.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2013 @ 11:50 am - January 31, 2013

  25. The perfect description of Brubeck, Barack Obama, and liberal tactics, from today’s Wall Street Journal:

    Back in 1965, when American politics watched the emergence of the New Left movement—rebranded today as “progressives”—a famous movement philosopher said the political left should be “liberated” from tolerating the opinions of the opposition:”Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

    That efficient strategy was the work of Herbert Marcuse, the political theorist whose ideas are generally credited with creating the basis for campus speech codes. Marcuse said, “Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” Marcuse created political correctness.

    But let’s talk about Marcuse in the here and now. He also proposed the withdrawal of toleration “from groups and movements . . . which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.”

    Barack Obama in his “gloves-off” news conference Jan. 14: “They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat or whether we should be spending money on medical research.”

    Marcuse called this “the systematic withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and repressive opinions.” That, clearly, is what President Obama—across his first term, the presidential campaign and now—has been doing to anyone who won’t line up behind his progressivism. Delegitimize their ideas and opinions.

    That’s exactly what Brubeck has been doing here. Every single one of his posts has been to point out how awful and repulsive Republicans, Tea Partiers, and conservatives are, how wrong the ideas and opinions of Republicans, Tea Partiers, and conservatives are, and how no one should pay any attention to Republicans, Tea Partiers, and conservatives.

    Notice that not once has Brubeck actually tried to put forth actual facts supporting his own positions. Every single one of his posts has been for one purpose and one purpose only: delegitimize the ideas and opinions Republicans, Tea Partiers, and conservatives.

    Brubeck does not wish to dialogue or interact. He wants to destroy Republicans, Tea Partiers, and conservatives. And he is going to sit here and harass and attack us until we punch back twice as hard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2013 @ 4:26 pm - January 31, 2013

  26. Brubeck @ #20:

    It’s an empirical question: [1.] either the climate is changing or it’s not, and if it is, [2.] either human activities are a major cause of climate change or they are not. [3.] By a vast majority, [4.] the people who actually know something about this, the scientific community, [5.] answer both questions in the affirmative.

    [1.] Climate change is a known and proven process. See: ice ages.

    [2.] The last ice age (Pleistocene) was about 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Humans were scarce. Therefore, the human effect on climate change is speculative and not empirical.

    [3.] Where is the survey that polled the whole “scientific community” which revealed the “vast majority?”

    [4.] What special credentials does a scientist devoted to nutrition, animal genetics, acoustics, metallurgy, and many more have in voting on whether man has a major impact on climate change?

    [5.] If a majority of scientists studying animal nutrition agree with a majority of metallurgists that man is a major cause of climate change, why would you exclude alchemists, phrenologists and soothsayers?

    Brubeck and his ilk are forever quoting this “vast science community majority” and yet we never get to see the poll or the polling sample statistics.

    How many scientists are there on the planet and who compiled the list and how did they decide who is a scientist and who is outside of the “scientific community” looking in.

    Next: What does “the denial of evolution” mean?

    Comment by heliotrope — January 31, 2013 @ 6:22 pm - January 31, 2013

  27. I find it interesting that the left gives itself such high marks for critical thinking skills, yet completely abandons all the principles of those skills for issues like AGW. They are completely lacking in information literacy. Suddenly, when the information is not matching the observations and historical data, they revert to “the scientists are the ones knowledgeable” about this issue, as if they suddenly have no deductive or reasoning skills whatsoever. For the rest of us that haven’t lost our intellectual identities, it is quite easy to see the flawed and ‘dishonest’ thinking.

    Comment by Scott Lassiter — February 1, 2013 @ 7:24 am - February 1, 2013

  28. It’s not just science though.
    Lib “Courts said Obamacare is constitutional! All hail the courts!”
    Someone with a brain “So you agree that the definition of mariage is a state issue?”
    Lib “What?”
    SwaB “Baker v. Nelson, 7-0 decision.”
    Lib “Well the courts get things wrong!”

    Lib “We should always question our leaders.”
    SWaB “Fine, let’s get those F&F records and get to the bottom of Benghazi.”
    Lib “How dare you questions the Glorious Leader’s Motives!”

    Etc.

    Comment by The_Livewire — February 1, 2013 @ 10:51 am - February 1, 2013

  29. Love all you smart, thoughtful commentators!

    Comment by runningrn — February 1, 2013 @ 8:20 pm - February 1, 2013

  30. Isn’t carbon dioxide neccessary for plants to produce oxygen and havrn’t carbon dioxide levels been lower than expected by this time because models didn’t account for plants converting carbon dioxide to oxygen?
    http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/
    http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/02/science/la-sci-land-ocean-carbon-sinks-20120802

    Comment by Paul — February 2, 2013 @ 5:31 am - February 2, 2013

  31. May I also remind you that while meterologists have patted themselves on the back about predicting Sandy’s path due to advances in modeling, one of the major models had it turning OUT TO SEA. Granted, Sandy was weather, but we keep hearing praises for getting the model right…ONE of the models was right. They cannot predict weather accurately, but somehow climate, which ocurrs over much longer periods of timenand has many more variables, is MORE predictable?
    Here’s another gem: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/020113-642924-climate-change-projections-overstate-degree-global-warming.htm

    Comment by Paul — February 2, 2013 @ 5:43 am - February 2, 2013

  32. What’s the point? We’re all going to die anyway.

    Comment by Indigo Red — February 2, 2013 @ 8:16 pm - February 2, 2013

  33. Great question but of course they will tell you that they can’t possibly make weather forecasts because of the uncertainty caused by global warming. It’s cold because of global warming. It’s hot, stormy, pleasant because of global warming.

    Why is no one making a case for adjusting what we do to accommodate the slowing rotation of the earth? That could stir up some hysteria.

    Comment by Sara — February 6, 2013 @ 8:12 am - February 6, 2013

  34. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Progressive Fruit Edition — February 6, 2013 @ 2:22 pm - February 6, 2013

  35. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Progressive Fruit Edition » Virginia Right! — February 6, 2013 @ 2:47 pm - February 6, 2013

  36. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Progressive Fruit Edition | askmarion — February 6, 2013 @ 3:54 pm - February 6, 2013

  37. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — February 6, 2013 @ 6:00 pm - February 6, 2013

  38. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Progressive Fruit Edition | therightplanet.com — February 6, 2013 @ 6:01 pm - February 6, 2013

  39. Curious post. you want predictions about global warming? What do predictors predict? Weather dudes predficted Sandy and they were right.

    Many right wing “pollsters” predicted huge win for Romney..well, you know where this is going.

    Comment by fred — February 7, 2013 @ 2:48 pm - February 7, 2013

  40. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels –1st Nominations of February 2013 — February 7, 2013 @ 7:18 pm - February 7, 2013

  41. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council submissions for February 7, 2013 — February 7, 2013 @ 9:18 pm - February 7, 2013

  42. [...] Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot –Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results » Virginia Right! — February 8, 2013 @ 9:43 am - February 8, 2013

  43. [...] Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 02/08/13 — February 8, 2013 @ 2:45 pm - February 8, 2013

  44. [...] Sixth  place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot –Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — February 8, 2013 @ 3:00 pm - February 8, 2013

  45. [...] Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by ‘Vat to Vead | — February 9, 2013 @ 12:30 am - February 9, 2013

  46. [...] Sixth  place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot –Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by Watchers Council Winners! | Independent Sentinel — February 9, 2013 @ 11:11 pm - February 9, 2013

  47. [...] Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote – Gay Patriot – Why don’t advocates of global warming make weather forecasts? [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s (02.08.13) Watcher’s Council Results | askmarion — February 10, 2013 @ 2:09 pm - February 10, 2013

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.302 Powered by Wordpress