Why aren't the climate change naysayers citing this week's weather as "evidence"?

coz they are SCIENTIFICALLY CHALLENGED as a good example look at their ex-VP selection... Palin thinks climate change is not relate to the human activity... it is just god's doing.. in the mean time, she supports and funds aerial hunting of wildlife animals.. she is for drill baby drill campaign ...

Because they know its just the weather doing what the weather does, it changes constantly. Algore sold you all a bill of goods and once again used fear to do it. Remember 2008 was the year that the Artic Ice was to be gone, yet the temperature went down and the ice returned to levels of 1979. Right now in California we are in what is classified as a drought and its Climate ( previously known as Global Warming " Change that's being blamed. The previous drought from approx 1986 through 1994 was far worse, but it went away. We then returned to the California weather pattern of dry it out, shake it up, wet it down then watch it slide down the hill. Weather forecasters can't get the next days weather correct but "experts" can tell us whats going to happen 20 years from now, or 4 years if you listen to the current administrations estimate. I think the weather is controlled by the sun and it's activity and earths response to it, but that's probably just crazy talk.

As opposed to the 20 degrees below average last week. It's called weather.

And I did see some AGW proponents blaming the Australian fires on the global warming bogeyman this week, rather than the arsonists who set dozens of those fires.

Maybe its because where I live in central New York, we normally get highs of around 10 to 15 degrees at this time of year and it is 55 degrees today.

It puts a damper on their "hey look, its only 10 degrees in the middle of winter" rant to debunk global warming.

We only cite weather to make fun of your tendency to claim every disaster is caused by global warming and that it proves it is happening.

Weather changes. Climate changes. Neither has ever been stable contrary to the alarmists' claims. What I don't understand is how they can simultaneously claim that there is a both stable climate and massive positive feedbacks.

edit: The practical upshot of which is that anything that happens is "proof". You don't even see how you contradict yourself. Wasn't the whole point of the "hockey stick" graph that climate was stable until just recently?

a former friend of mine broke into al gore's compound back in december. he was quite surprised to find al's weather changing machine. wanting to ensure a white christmas, he set the dials to extreme cold. realizing his mistake and the freezing cold temperatures he cause, he went back last week to reset the dials. oddly enough, he found climate records on the former vp's desk. he was surprised to discover al had hidden records of the earth's weather dating back to the Mayans! next to those record was a pad of paper. scribbled nervously in old al's handwriting was' my god i'm wrong! we're just in a cycle!!!'

Easily explained by all of the hot air coming from the White House