Okay, last week I mocked the government because of the assertion that the recent blizzards were a reason that we saw a larger-than-expected increase in jobless claims. I thought that perhaps this was the blame game going overboard, but that isn't the case.

White House economic adviser Larry Summers reiterated yesterday that "winter blizzards were likely to distort U.S. February jobless figures." Seriously. Yes, I know that some companies have weather-related issues and that could have some impact on the jobless picture, but this is just a bit much.

Oil prices hit a 6 week high today, as cold weather gripped most of the country.

Over the weekend the nation was hit with a cold front that reminded oil traders that the high demand winter season is on its way, and could help reduce a lot of the oversupply that the market is currently looking at.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer snow's not good for stocks, particularly coupled with other disturbing news.

When I was long and it snowed, I would always be worried: Would the bulls stay home? Would they defend their turf?

And when the snow happened on Friday I just figured my portfolio would be a free fire zone: What bull comes to work on a snowday? They take off. The rigor, the toughness, the never miss guys, they are all bears!

I actually thought like that. So, when I woke up and saw the snow I figured, oh yeah, this will be such an easy market to push down, there is so little going for it.

And that's the real issue, isn't it? Other than rate cut possibilities and some good numbers from companies that do a lot of business overseas, this market has nothing going for it.

The Weather Channel, held by family-owned Landmark Communications of Virginia, is being auctioned off along with the rest of Landmark, and could fetch $5 billion. A number of public companies may have an interest. According to The New York Times, firms looking at the property include Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA) and General Electric (NYSE: GE).

The Weather Channel is attractive for two reasons. The first is that there are very few large, independent cable networks. Most, including CNN, CNBC, ESPN, and MTV, are already owned by media giants. The chance to pick up another large advertising-supported 24-hour product should be very attractive.

The second tremendous selling point is that weather.com, the online arm of the company, is one of the most-visited sites in the U.S. In November, comScore ranked it as the 16th most-visited website, with 34.1 million unique visitors. That puts it ahead of ESPN.com, CBS.com, and the Viacom (NYSE: VIA) digital properties.

The Weather Channel is a rare prize. The bidding should be spirited.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

A cold day in hell -- or at least on Wall Street -- is the best time to buy stock. At least, that's what studies spanning 16 years and 26 different stock markets have found.

According to the Washington Post, "If you consistently bought stocks when the sky was gray and overcast and consistently sold stocks when the weather was bright and sunny, and you did this over a period of 16 years across 26 stock markets around the world, you would ... well, let's just say you'd be lounging on a sunny beach right now."

Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future results. And the transaction costs of "Buy cloudy, sell sunny" are so high that I don't think investors should swap out of their index funds just yet. But the studies are interesting in that they raise questions about the efficient market hypothesis and the idea of homo econimicus.

What rational investor would sell his stock because it's cloudy? And yet it seems that, at least subconsciously, people do exactly that.

I'd be interested in what efficient market disciples like Burton Malkiel have to say about these studies.

On the new personal finance site we're about to launch, I'm contemplating doing a series called "Why Would Anyone Buy That" as a special weekly place to highlight all those consumer products that people buy and I don't understand why.

A soundtrack to The Weather Channel would seem like a pretty good place to start. Weather Channel Presents: Best of Smooth Jazz, released in October, seems like a sure candidate for the discount rack. But, actually, the eight Amazon.com customers who have reviewed it have generally been kind, giving it an average of 4.5 out of 5 stars.

According to the Associated Press, "The songs are among the channel's most requested selections and play during the forecast fixture 'Local on the 8s' that airs six times an hour. It's the cue that draws you to the TV set when you want to find out if you should take along that jacket when you leave home."

I can't imagine buying a CD with "The Weather Channel" in the title: It seems like an invitation to mockery: Possibly even lower than Kenny G and Michael Bolton. But regardless of what I think, you have to hand it to The Weather Channel's marketing people. Who ever would have thought that a station that provides 24-hour coverage of the weather, hardly a scintillating topic to most people, would build a strong enough brand that it can be used to sell CDs.

I can think of a few companies that are struggling to capitalize on their brands that could use some of The Weather Channel's marketing savvy.

Being from L.A., I've had to deal with earthquakes and fire (no, it's not always sunshine here). And, of course, I saw the devastation of the recent fires.

But what about some of the businesses that need to rebuild? Could they have prepared for the fires?

Well, I recently interviewed Jon Toigo, a disaster recovery expert at Toigo Partners International. Over the past 20 years, he has put together nearly 100 disaster recovery plans. His clients include Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), Cisco Systems (NASDAQ: CSCO), and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ). Also, Toigo has a partnership with Office Depot to help businesses deal with disaster preparedness.

"The bottom line in disaster preparedness is to protect your most irreplaceable assets – your people and your data," said Toigo.

Forbes magazine needs a good map or two.

The business magazine's article "America's Wildest Weather Cities" lists two places that don't exist. Blue Hill, Mass, dubbed the windiest city, is incorrectly described as a Boston suburb. Actually, there is a place called Blue Hill, The Blue Hill Reservation, a 7,000-acre state park that seems lovely. The Web site lists its address in Milton, Mass. There is no town named Blue Hill in the Boston area, according to the Greater Boston Convention and Vistors Bureau.

More embarrassing is the description of Springfield, Mississippi. I could find no town by that name in Mississippi although there is a Springfield Plantation near Natchez which reviewers on Yahoo Travel seemed to like. Even odder, though, was that Forbes describes Springfield as "a slightly elevated city in the Ozarks at 1,266 feet." As this helpful map on Wikipedia shows, the Ozarks don't go into Mississippi. Interestingly, there is a city in Missouri named Springfield that happens to be located at an elevation of 1,266 feet and is known as Queen of the Ozarks. Perhaps, Forbes was thinking of that Springfield or the one where the Simpsons reside.

Though I hate to spoil today's company holiday at Forbes, there is a bigger issue at stake here. In today's age of instant communication, readers need to be more skeptical now than they ever have been. Wrong information can be spread with an alarming speed.

Should Forbes have caught these errors before the story was published? Of course. But the news gathering and writing process isn't fool proof. Mistakes, though unfortunate, are unavoidable. No one is perfect.

But what separates journalists from people who just post stuff is how they deal with errors when they are pointed out. I've contacted the reporter who wrote the story and will let you know if I get a response.

Update: Forbes has corrected the errors.

If you woke up this morning expecting to take a trip on JetBlue Airways Corp. (NASDAQ: JBLU) you may want to double check your flight before heading off to the airport. The airline announced that 215 flights have been canceled due to stormy weather forecast.

The hardest hit hub was New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport where over 200 planned flights were canceled. This comprises a little over one-third of all JetBlue flights scheduled for the day.

JetBlue thinks that canceling these flights will avoid the problems it had faced back on Feb. 14th when hundreds of passengers got stuck for long periods of time (some over 10 hours) on parked planes at Kennedy airport. During that storm the airline company decided to try to get all its passengers to their destinations, a decision which had severe backlash on the company.

JetBlue Airways Corp. (NASDAQ:JBLU) canceled 68 flights scheduled to come in and out of its hub at John F. Kennedy International Airport today because forecasts were calling for the region to get hit with as much as 7 inches of snow.

The storm may not be as bad as originally thought. Forecasts this morning on Weather.com are calling for 1 to 3 inches of snow tonight. Did JetBlue overreact? Maybe. But the low-cost airline has good reason to be cautious.

JetBlue's performance is under an electron microscope following the disastrous performance on Valentine's Day in which people were trapped on board planes for hours that never took off. Chief Executive David Neeleman has apologized more than Bill Clinton, Michael Richards and Mel Gibson combined and has offered what he calls a Passenger Bill of Rights that gives vouchers if their flights are delayed.

All hope isn't lost for JetBlue. Judging from the huge response to my previous post, the airline has plenty of fans. The public is fickle though.

People aren't stupid. They understand that airlines don't always run on time and that luggage gets lost. JetBlue will lose the goodwill it enjoys if the public starts to think that it doesn't know what it's doing.

Mark Twain once said, "Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it."

True, he was a great writer. But, he probably would have made a bad investor.

You see, weather can make you a lot of money. According to a piece in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), it looks like a variety of reinsurance companies – as well as hedge funds – have hit the jackpot by making bets on weather.

After all, with a rash of hurricanes expected this year, it was imperative for reinsurance companies to find ways to hedge things. The best practice (or the most profitable one): hike premiums.

Now, it looks like it was a great way to print money. One of the big winners appears to be Berkshire Hathaway, which is managed by one of the richest persons in the world, Warren Buffett.

To carry out these bets, there is a new investment vehicle: sidecar. It's a complex way for billion-dollar investors to play the weather game. And it could mean annual returns of 20% to 30%.

Then again, these returns are not guaranteed. Betting on weather could prove to be a disaster. Look at the implosion of the Amaranth hedge fund, which made bets on natural gas. The trades went sour primarily because of weather.

So far, it looks like some reinsurance companies and hedge funds have beat the odds. And, yes, there is something that can be done about the weather; that is, make a fortune.

Tom Taulli is the author of various books, including the Complete M&A Handbook and operates InvestorOffering.com.