I've heard all sorts of horrible things about our president, but it
turns out nothing is quite as horrible as the truth.  From CNN,
describing President Obama's presence at a basketball game:

http://tinyurl.com/ykfdhxq

"Robinson, who coaches the Oregon State Beavers, was cheered on by the
President, who snacked on popcorn, the First Lady, Sasha, Malia and the
girls’ grandmother Marian Robinson."

Eric Carlson

you forgot a very important factor. GW will cause the ocean conveyor to slow
down due too warm water(which doesnt sink) and melting freshh water in the
Artic. This will turn the UK and France into places like northern Canada

Paulo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] sun activity


> The sources you are citing sound like typical global warming denier
> claims.  They look at isolated information, without looking at the
> overall picture.
>
> The Sun has, indeed, entered a period of apparent lower activity, which
> should logically lead to a small amount of cooling.  It is also true
> that we are in an interglacial period, which means we should, in
> principle, eventually enter another ice age, though it might well take
> thousands of years to get there.  This is assuming man has no effect, an
> assertion few claim.
>
> Nonetheless, global temperatures are NOT anomalously low.  Though they
> aren't as high as a few years ago, they are still very high.  The fact
> that we can have such high temperatures DESPITE the low solar activity
> is very worrying.  It suggests if the solar activity picks up again, we
> will have an era of unprecedented acceleration in the global warming.
> Without intending to sound alarmist, we may be in far worse shape than
> the current temperatures indicate.
>
> To get an idea of what GLOBAL temperatures are doing, here is a summary
> from NOAA:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygyp2mp
>
> "The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009
> was the sixth warmest on record"
>
> "For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface
> temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest
> January-through-October period on record."
>
> So far this is (tied for) the fifth warmest year on record.  Why one
> would trust an English Tabloid over NOAA is unclear.  According to
> Wikipedia,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
>
> "The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional
> values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy"
>
> In other words, they aren't even trying to be unbiased.  Whoever is
> sending you these links has an agenda, and is more interested in a a
> political agenda than the truth.
>
> So, Paulo, any reason you are quoting these sources?
>
> Eric Carlson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I just read the url you posted. I can confirm that in Portugal and Germany
we`re having an exceptionally warm Autumn with averages of 19 celcius.

Paulo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] sun activity


> The sources you are citing sound like typical global warming denier
> claims.  They look at isolated information, without looking at the
> overall picture.
>
> The Sun has, indeed, entered a period of apparent lower activity, which
> should logically lead to a small amount of cooling.  It is also true
> that we are in an interglacial period, which means we should, in
> principle, eventually enter another ice age, though it might well take
> thousands of years to get there.  This is assuming man has no effect, an
> assertion few claim.
>
> Nonetheless, global temperatures are NOT anomalously low.  Though they
> aren't as high as a few years ago, they are still very high.  The fact
> that we can have such high temperatures DESPITE the low solar activity
> is very worrying.  It suggests if the solar activity picks up again, we
> will have an era of unprecedented acceleration in the global warming.
> Without intending to sound alarmist, we may be in far worse shape than
> the current temperatures indicate.
>
> To get an idea of what GLOBAL temperatures are doing, here is a summary
> from NOAA:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygyp2mp
>
> "The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009
> was the sixth warmest on record"
>
> "For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface
> temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest
> January-through-October period on record."
>
> So far this is (tied for) the fifth warmest year on record.  Why one
> would trust an English Tabloid over NOAA is unclear.  According to
> Wikipedia,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
>
> "The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional
> values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy"
>
> In other words, they aren't even trying to be unbiased.  Whoever is
> sending you these links has an agenda, and is more interested in a a
> political agenda than the truth.
>
> So, Paulo, any reason you are quoting these sources?
>
> Eric Carlson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

http://api.ning.com/files/9WnJDVlC6npLKOQgsp0l2Cm7iEMijO01h4S2nFzxgpE0SlbpwB6WIt\
VHAdIDAW4yKCUiC3dgyWh2DPdmUlpwSoAWVhA6BGop/2030_globalcooling_v092.pdf
Maybe now you can read the link
p
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] sun activity


> The sources you are citing sound like typical global warming denier
> claims.  They look at isolated information, without looking at the
> overall picture.
>
> The Sun has, indeed, entered a period of apparent lower activity, which
> should logically lead to a small amount of cooling.  It is also true
> that we are in an interglacial period, which means we should, in
> principle, eventually enter another ice age, though it might well take
> thousands of years to get there.  This is assuming man has no effect, an
> assertion few claim.
>
> Nonetheless, global temperatures are NOT anomalously low.  Though they
> aren't as high as a few years ago, they are still very high.  The fact
> that we can have such high temperatures DESPITE the low solar activity
> is very worrying.  It suggests if the solar activity picks up again, we
> will have an era of unprecedented acceleration in the global warming.
> Without intending to sound alarmist, we may be in far worse shape than
> the current temperatures indicate.
>
> To get an idea of what GLOBAL temperatures are doing, here is a summary
> from NOAA:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygyp2mp
>
> "The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009
> was the sixth warmest on record"
>
> "For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface
> temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest
> January-through-October period on record."
>
> So far this is (tied for) the fifth warmest year on record.  Why one
> would trust an English Tabloid over NOAA is unclear.  According to
> Wikipedia,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
>
> "The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional
> values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy"
>
> In other words, they aren't even trying to be unbiased.  Whoever is
> sending you these links has an agenda, and is more interested in a a
> political agenda than the truth.
>
> So, Paulo, any reason you are quoting these sources?
>
> Eric Carlson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

No particular reason. I simply read a lot about GW these days.
The fact that there has been some sun activity last year doesn`t mean
anything though. The PDF link I sent you talks about the predictions by
Theodor Landscheidt,who neve failed before, but he is now defunct

Paulo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] sun activity


> The sources you are citing sound like typical global warming denier
> claims.  They look at isolated information, without looking at the
> overall picture.
>
> The Sun has, indeed, entered a period of apparent lower activity, which
> should logically lead to a small amount of cooling.  It is also true
> that we are in an interglacial period, which means we should, in
> principle, eventually enter another ice age, though it might well take
> thousands of years to get there.  This is assuming man has no effect, an
> assertion few claim.
>
> Nonetheless, global temperatures are NOT anomalously low.  Though they
> aren't as high as a few years ago, they are still very high.  The fact
> that we can have such high temperatures DESPITE the low solar activity
> is very worrying.  It suggests if the solar activity picks up again, we
> will have an era of unprecedented acceleration in the global warming.
> Without intending to sound alarmist, we may be in far worse shape than
> the current temperatures indicate.
>
> To get an idea of what GLOBAL temperatures are doing, here is a summary
> from NOAA:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygyp2mp
>
> "The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009
> was the sixth warmest on record"
>
> "For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface
> temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest
> January-through-October period on record."
>
> So far this is (tied for) the fifth warmest year on record.  Why one
> would trust an English Tabloid over NOAA is unclear.  According to
> Wikipedia,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
>
> "The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional
> values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy"
>
> In other words, they aren't even trying to be unbiased.  Whoever is
> sending you these links has an agenda, and is more interested in a a
> political agenda than the truth.
>
> So, Paulo, any reason you are quoting these sources?
>
> Eric Carlson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The sources you are citing sound like typical global warming denier
claims.  They look at isolated information, without looking at the
overall picture.

The Sun has, indeed, entered a period of apparent lower activity, which
should logically lead to a small amount of cooling.  It is also true
that we are in an interglacial period, which means we should, in
principle, eventually enter another ice age, though it might well take
thousands of years to get there.  This is assuming man has no effect, an
assertion few claim.

Nonetheless, global temperatures are NOT anomalously low.  Though they
aren't as high as a few years ago, they are still very high.  The fact
that we can have such high temperatures DESPITE the low solar activity
is very worrying.  It suggests if the solar activity picks up again, we
will have an era of unprecedented acceleration in the global warming.
Without intending to sound alarmist, we may be in far worse shape than
the current temperatures indicate.

To get an idea of what GLOBAL temperatures are doing, here is a summary
from NOAA:

http://tinyurl.com/ygyp2mp

"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for October 2009
was the sixth warmest on record"

"For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface
temperature of 14.7 °C (58.4 °F) tied with 2007 as the fifth-warmest
January-through-October period on record."

So far this is (tied for) the fifth warmest year on record.  Why one
would trust an English Tabloid over NOAA is unclear.  According to
Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

"The Mail takes an anti-EU, anti-abortion view, based upon "traditional
values", and is pro-capitalism and pro-monarchy"

In other words, they aren't even trying to be unbiased.  Whoever is
sending you these links has an agenda, and is more interested in a a
political agenda than the truth.

So, Paulo, any reason you are quoting these sources?

Eric Carlson

Hi all,


Some interesting news from Space Weather (copied below).
The solar activity has now been very low for the last few years, and if we
continue like this we may be moving into a (small) ice age within a decade or
so.
That's what one leading climate scientist predicted based on calculations
several years ago already (he died a few years ago). The abnormally low count of
sunspots in the current cycle is what he predicted would be the first signs that
we are moving in the direction of a major cold period.

For more details see this PDF: 2030_globalcooling_v092.pdf



SPOTLESS SUNS: Yesterday, NASA announced that the sun has plunged into the
deepest solar minimum in nearly a century. Sunspots have all but vanished and
consequently the sun has become very quiet. In 2008, the sun had no spots 73% of
the time, a 95-year low. In 2009, sunspots are even more scarce, with the
"spotless rate" jumping to 87%. We are currently experiencing a stretch of 25
continuous days uninterrupted by sunspots--and there's no end in sight.

This is a big event, but it is not unprecedented. Similarly deep solar minima
were common in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, and each time the sun
recovered with a fairly robust solar maximum. That's probably what will happen
in the present case, although no one can say for sure. This is the first deep
solar minimum of the Space Age, and the first one we have been able to observe
using modern technology. Is it like others of the past? Or does this solar
minimum have its own unique characteristics that we will discover for the first
time as the cycle unfolds? These questions are at the cutting edge of solar
physics.

You can monitor the progress of solar minimum with a new "Spotless Days Counter"
on spaceweather.com. Instead of counting sunspots, we're counting no sunspots.
Daily updated totals tell you how many spotless days there have been in a row,
in this year, and in the entire solar cycle. Comparisons to historical
benchmarks put it all in perspective. Visit http://spaceweather.com for recent
dataAbout this subject the scientits are looking for Global Cooling, like NASA
and some others. Global Warming is still in large cities because of the human
action, like Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) or some areas of the planet
which are running business like oil or factories.

Global Cooling is a fact from many years ago. Glaciations take place in the
planet periodically, and there are many sources where we can get this
information.

Some links:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=200201167312
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/rawurban3.5_pg.gif
http://www.climatecooling.org/

Of course, there are many opinions and contradictions, but as far as I know a
new glaciation era is coming, it wont be too long and hard, as they said, but it
is coming. I attended a conference like 20 years ago, and scientists predicted
that fact.

Paulo


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So and here we go.
Cold records in the USA, earliest snow ever in Austria.
Global warming anyone?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220052/Austria-sees-earliest-sno\
w-history-America-sees-lowest-temperatures-50-years-So-did-global-warming-go.htm\
l

The Sun remains very quiet.


Here is a little gadget that monitors the solar activity (it should update every
hour or so)






   This one monitors the evolution of temperatures and CO2:







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bizarre calf mutilations found on Colorado ranch
The Associated  Press

A creepy string of calf mutilations in southern Colorado has a rancher  and
sheriff's officials mystified.

Four calves were found dead in a  pasture just north of the New Mexico
state line in recent weeks. The dead calves  had their skins peeled back and
organs cleared from the rib cage. One calf had  its tongue removed.

But rancher Manuel Sanchez has found no signs of  human attackers, such as
footprints or ATV tracks. And there are no signs of an  animal attack by a
coyote or mountain lion. Usually predators leave pools of  blood or drag
marks from carrying away the livestock.

Two officers from  the Costilla County Sheriff's Office have investigated
the mutilations but say  they don't know what's killing the calves.

"There's nothing really to go  by," said Sanchez, who's ranched for nearly
50 years. "I can't figure it  out."

A spokesman for the sheriff's office told The Pueblo Chieftain that
investigators doubt a person butchered the calves because there is no blood at
the scene.

"I've butchered a cow before and I know what kind of a mess it  leaves,"
Sgt. James Chavez said.

Some in the area believe the mutilations  are the work of aliens. An area
UFO chaser, Chuck Zukowski of Colorado Springs,  has been to the Costilla
County pasture to investigate.

He told the paper  there have been other unexplained calf mutilations in
the area, including three  in March. One of the other calves, found dead on a
ranch near Trinidad, had its  ears removed, Zukowski said.

"We're trying as much as we can to find a  pattern," said Zukowski, who
runs a UFO Web site called  ufonut.com.

Sanchez said he has sold off his 32 remaining calves out of  fear more
would be mutilated. He hasn't decided how he'll manage the remaining  40 animals
in his herd.

"It's a big loss for a small rancher," he  said.
___

Information from: The Pueblo Chieftain,  www.chieftain.com

HR



...

Who's duping who?  Protestants duping Catholics or Catholics duping
Protestants?  Who would control the theocracy?

================================================================================\
======

Religious Leaders: Civil Disobedience OK to Protect Faith

Saturday, November 21, 2009 2:52 PM

A formidable coalition of 150 Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical leaders is
calling on Christians in a new manifesto to reject secular authority — and
even engage in civil disobedience — if laws force them to accept abortion,
same-sex marriage, and other ideas that betray their religious beliefs.

On Friday, these leaders released a 4,700-word document, titled the "The
Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience," which calls on
Christians to engage in civil disobedience to defend their doctrines.

Those signing the document ranged from evangelical leader Chuck Colson to
two of the leading Catholic prelates in the United States, Archbishop Donald
Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York.

The document also blasts the Obama administration, saying that social ills
have grown since the election of President Obama, an abortion rights
advocate, along with an erosion of what it calls "marriage culture" with the
rise of divorce, greater acceptance of infidelity, and the uncoupling of
marriage from childbearing.

The project is aimed at instilling social conservative beliefs in a new
generation of believers, Colson said.

"We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues," he told The New York Times.
"A lot of younger evangelicals say they're all alike. We're hoping to
educate them that these are the three most important issues" – abortion,
marriage, and religious liberty.

"We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at
this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good,
and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to
join us in defending them," says the declaration, which was drafted by
Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George,
a Roman Catholic.

The declaration lists the "fundamental truths" as the "sanctity of human
life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and
the rights of conscience and religious liberty."

"Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience
is not only permitted, but sometimes required," says the document, which
cited civil rights icon Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail
for his beliefs.

"Because we honor justice and the common good," it states, "we will not
comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to
participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or
euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule
purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as
marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we
know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family."

George and other signers backed off from specifically defining what civil
disobedience may entail. Wuerl's office played down the civil disobedience
wording, saying he wasn't urging Catholics to "do anything specific," his
spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, told The Washington Post. "That wasn't something
we had talked about."

"We certainly hope it doesn't come to that," said George, who told The
Washington Times that he has represented a West Virginia resident who has
refused to pay a portion of her state income tax that funds abortions.
"However, we see case after case of challenges to religious liberty," such
as compelling pharmacists to carry abortifacient drugs or healthcare workers
to assist in abortions, he said.

"When the limits of conscience are reached and you cannot comply, it's
better to suffer a wrong than to do it," he said.

Unveiling the declaration Friday, Wuerl appeared at a news conference in the
District of Columbia even as the church was considering a city-proposed
compromise on its same-sex marriage measure.

He and other church officials say the bill would require faith-based groups
like Catholic Charities to extend benefits to married same-sex partners,
thus forcing Christians to abandon their religious liberty. On Friday,
Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services rather than comply
with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

Other signatories to the document include Cardinal Justin Rigali, outgoing
chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities;
Pentecostal leader Harry Jackson, pastor of a Beltsville church; evangelical
activist Tony Perkins; and National Association of Evangelicals President
Leith Anderson.

Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Newsweek the point
of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when
religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce,
which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce
rates.

“I’m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience,
but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not
only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

The leaders are urging the public to sign the online document.

http://bit.ly/5fTcqz

Regards,

Joe Needham


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Another movie could be about how Reagan sought

> advice from psychics. I just don't know if it would be

> a comedy or a tragedy.
> - John



COMMENT:  Martin Gardner devoted a section to it in one of his skeptical
books about the modern U.S. president and his wife who were ignorant enough
to believe in astrology.  Bedtime for Bonzo strikes again.



In his book, former Chief of Staff, Don Regan, has some rather revealing
comments about Nancy Reagan hamstringing the presidency per her demand that
the White House schedule of official events, diplomatic attempts, and other
policy were only to be done per an oddball good day/bad day astrology
calendar that was provided by her personal astrologer.



Regan had to color code the president's monthly day planner calendar per the
good day and bad day predictions as well as schedule travel departures at
odd hours.



JT





http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Side-Martin-Gardner/dp/0879757132



In this round-up of Skeptical Inquirer columns plus essays and reviews
published in various magazines, Gardner scores both hits and misses in his
debunking of the paranormal, the occult and borderline science. Easy targets
include parapsychologist J. B. Rhine, whom he accuses of cover-up of fraud;
a Florida hollow-earth cult; the Reagans' obsession with astrology; Wilhelm
Reich's orgone box; and speaking-in-tongues, especially as practiced by the
likes of Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker and Pat Robinson



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://littlelink.webtrouble.com/?p1Fb

Top Ten Signs Your House Has Paranormal Activity

* You've been given a small TV show budget, an extremely clumsy video crew,
and an old home that is usually dead quiet.

COMMENT:  Try your skeptical luck at the Letterman site.

JT

Best Blasphemy Awards Announced
Center for Inquiry declares 'Faith is no reason' the  winner.
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is pleased to announce that Ken Peters of
California is the Grand Prize winner of its Blasphemy Contest, which asked
contestants to submit statements of no more than twenty words critical of
religious beliefs. The entry Mr. Peters submitted was: “Faith is no reason.”
In announcing the award, CFI president and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay said “This
  entry, using only four words, summarizes nicely one of the key principles
of  post-Enlightenment thought. Beliefs should be based on evidence and
reason.  Faith is not a basis for logically sound belief.”
When CFI decided in September to hold a contest in conjunction with its
commemoration of International Blasphemy Day, it generated a firestorm of
controversy. Some observers claimed that CFI was soliciting hate speech, and
they likened CFI to Nazis publishing anti-Semitic attacks.
CFI rejected those mischaracterizations then and continues to reject them
now. “In holding a blasphemy contest, we wished to underscore our position
that  religious beliefs are subject to examination and criticism, just like
other  beliefs,” said Lindsay. “Sometimes that criticism may take the form
of a  scholarly essay; sometimes the criticism may take the form of a pithy,
pointed  remark. Both are appropriate forms of free expression.”
CFI emphasized it wanted clever, concise statements that might capture some
  of the flaws of religious beliefs. CFI was not interested in crude attacks
on  believers. CFI was not disappointed in the entries—either in their
quality  overall or their quantity. Approximately 650 contestants submitted over
a  thousand entries (contestants could submit two entries).
In addition to the Grand Prize winner, there were four other winners. Their
  entries were:
     *   “There’s no religion like no religion,” submitted by Daniel Boles
of  Thailand
     *   “I wouldn't even follow your god on Twitter,” submitted by Michael
Hein of  South Carolina
     *   “The reason religious beliefs need protection from ridicule is that
they  are ridiculous,” submitted by Michael Nugent of Ireland
     *   “I survived the God virus,” submitted by Perry Bulwer of British
Columbia,  Canada.
     *
All top five winners will receive a _CFI  T-shirt_
(http://inquiry.myshopify.com/collections/all)  with their submission imprinted
on the shirt. Ken
Peters, the Grand  Prize winner, will also receive a coffee mug with his
slogan and he will be  officially recognized in a forthcoming issue of _Free
Inquiry_ (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index) , the
magazine published by CFI’s affiliate,  the Council for Secular Humanism.
The contest judges also decided that ten other entries, including a couple
of  limericks, would receive “honorable mention.” Those entries, and
further  information about the contest, can be found at the _official
announcement_ (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/blasphemy_contest_winners/) 
on CFI’
s Web site.


The Blasphemy Contest was one component of CFI’s continuing _Campaign for
Free Expression_
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/campaign_for_free_expression) . Another ongoing
contest that is  also part of the Campaign is the _Free
Expression essay contest_
(http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Rules_for_Free_Expression_E\
ssay_Contest_2009.pdf)  ($2,000 Grand Prize).
CFI thanks everyone who took the time to submit an entry. Your
participation helped make the contest a success.



HR



...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

JST wrote: What a tribute to oddball military plans and costly human folly
on
all levels.





This reminds me that I am interested in seeing the movie "Men who stare at
goats".



I do remember a while back being told that some branch of the military was
convinced of the worthiness of "remote viewing". I never saw any convincing
evidence whatsoever and always felt that the drawings were too vague, making
it easy to match up with real world items. (You know, a drawing of a couple
of cylinders becomes an oil refinery, or wavy lines is a lake, etc.)



The commercials I have seen for "goats" seem to have the character played by
George Cluney actually possessing some kind of supernatural powers. That is
disappointing to me. I thought the movie would be funny enough just based on
the actual facts of the story. The very idea of sitting and staring and
hoping to have an effect on an animal. And all the top brass that must have
bought in to it. I wonder what kind of shyster was at the bottom of it all?



Another movie could be about how Reagan sought advice from psychics.  I just
don't know if it would be a comedy or a tragedy.



John



_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.8.3
http://www.iolo.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

pj:

You misunderstood my objection.  You posted my comments to skyscript
without ascribing them to me.  You said labeled them with something akin
to "from a skeptic."  They assumed that you were speaking as yourself,
within the context of that forum, which does not even purport to be
scientific (so far as I can tell).  I posted here on the assumption that
you were proposing this as an argument for a scientific basis for astrology.

And, by the way, the link you provided previously was incorrect.  You
simply reposted an incorrect link from skyscript without checking it
yourself.  The article referenced at

http://cura.free.fr/cura2/810houx.html

is titled "Tomorrow's News Today: Astrology, Fate, and the Way Out"
by Daryn Lehoux, and seems mostly unrelated to what you have posted before.

I don't really want to get in an argument with someone who isn't
interested in the science.  They don't want to use any sort of
scientific test, with or without statistics.  They say they aren't
making the claim that astrology is science (though it's unclear what
they think the point of their argument is, in that case).

Having this long-distance argument is pretty fruitless, with you acting
as an intermediary.

I went to skyscript and emailed the author of the post to clarify what
was going on, hoping to clear up any confusion resulting from your cross
postings.

Eric Carlson

On 11/16/2009 8:48 AM, pj wrote:
> www.skyscript.com/forum

[snip]

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4875

heres the link but it is locked, you may join and start it again
p


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] astrology


> pj:
>
> If you are going to post my comments elsewhere, you are obligated to
> make clear the place they came from.  Here is something you posted:
>
>> This is not a place for your arrogance. Since you don't like the subject
>> I
>> suggest you go elsewhere - pronto. This sort of nonsense is not welcome
>> here
>> and your posts won't last long.
>
> It is clear from this comment that Tom is responding to my comments, and
> believing I posted them on skyscript.  But they were posted by you, not
> me.  I didn't post them there.
>
> I think I've said before I don't want to have some sort of indirect
> conversation with you acting as an intermediary.  If Tom wants to talk
> to me, let him.  But don't post my comments there, or his comments here,
> without clarifying the source.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

www.skyscript.com/forum

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] astrology


> pj:
>
> If you are going to post my comments elsewhere, you are obligated to
> make clear the place they came from.  Here is something you posted:
>
>> This is not a place for your arrogance. Since you don't like the subject
>> I
>> suggest you go elsewhere - pronto. This sort of nonsense is not welcome
>> here
>> and your posts won't last long.
>
> It is clear from this comment that Tom is responding to my comments, and
> believing I posted them on skyscript.  But they were posted by you, not
> me.  I didn't post them there.
>
> I think I've said before I don't want to have some sort of indirect
> conversation with you acting as an intermediary.  If Tom wants to talk
> to me, let him.  But don't post my comments there, or his comments here,
> without clarifying the source.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

pj:

If you are going to post my comments elsewhere, you are obligated to
make clear the place they came from.  Here is something you posted:

> This is not a place for your arrogance. Since you don't like the subject I
> suggest you go elsewhere - pronto. This sort of nonsense is not welcome here
> and your posts won't last long.

It is clear from this comment that Tom is responding to my comments, and
believing I posted them on skyscript.  But they were posted by you, not
me.  I didn't post them there.

I think I've said before I don't want to have some sort of indirect
conversation with you acting as an intermediary.  If Tom wants to talk
to me, let him.  But don't post my comments there, or his comments here,
without clarifying the source.

Eric

From Tom at skyscript forum:

I cannot imagine a more tiresome response.


       Quote:
       I can't possibly see how this is supposed to be an argument for
       astrology. Astronomy is predictable, and this makes astrology
reliable?
       They have almost nothing in common!



It wasn't an argument in favor of astrology. It was an observation that
skeptics can't tell the difference between one form of divination and
another, and I think you made that point pretty well with your comment.


       Quote:
       On the contrary, most skeptics are very critical of most psychology,
       particularly clinical psychology. On the other hand, there has been
       some real progress in psychology; portions of it are now based on
pretty
       firm results.



I love unsupported statements like "most skeptics." Did you take a poll? Are
skeptics classified, or otherwise documented? Real progress? How about
supplying the precision you demand of others? First off my remarks were not
so much aimed at the study of human behavior as they were psychotherapy.
They are different and I thought context made that clear. I guess not.


       Quote:
       I've discussed Gauquelin before. Do I need to repeat my arguments?



Your arguments mean nothing to me. You may think they are the last word on
50 years of research tested and retested by people who know more than you, I
don't.


       Quote:
       One of the worst arguments I've ever seen. Can you name ANY valid
       science that doesn't use statistics? Isn't this an argument against
       astrology?



Worst response Ive ever seen. You put words in my mouth to set up the straw
man. That's propaganda not science tsk tsk. The reason you don't understand
these things is that you don't pay attention to them. Show me where I said
astrology was a science in the way that you use the word. I'll save you the
trouble that you won't take. I never did and neither does any other
astrologer. You criticize what you do not understand - all too typical.


       Quote:
       Tell you what - if you think astrology is valid, how about we come up
       with a test, you and I, and we'll make a bet on the outcome. Are you
       game? Can you find any astrologers who would be willing to participate
       in a test of astrology? In other words, put up or shut up.




PAY ATTENTION! If I don't think astrology lends itself to statistics and if
I think liars use statistics, why would I do this? I already noted the
failure of the New York Suicide study. And secondly why would I trust you in
the first place? People with minds nailed shut rarely follow through on
anything that proves them wrong. You don't understand the Gauquelin
research, and reject it; there is no hope you would admit error in any test.

This is not a place for your arrogance. Since you don't like the subject I
suggest you go elsewhere - pronto. This sort of nonsense is not welcome here
and your posts won't last long.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] astrology


> pj,
>
> At the risk of going outside my field, it is pretty clear that this is
> not your writing.  Who are you citing?  Does this represent your opinion?
>
> Really, we've discussed a lot of this before, and you're mostly just
> repeating arguments that have been discussed here ad nauseum.  If you
> want to discuss some of them, fine, but just posting an essay like this
> doesn't do a lot of good.  I've only commented on a few things.
>
> On 11/15/2009 4:03 PM, pj wrote:
>> The difference between astrology and the
>> other divination techniques is that the planets movements are
>> predictable, and therefore systems based on things that are not
>> predictable, the draw of the tarot, the entrails of a calf's liver, toss
>> of the dice, are not remotely the same as astrology.
>
> I can't possibly see how this is supposed to be an argument for
> astrology.  Astronomy is predictable, and this makes astrology reliable?
>  They have almost nothing in common!  There is such freedom of
> interpretation in astrology that it is effectively not predictable.
> It's just as bad as the rest.
>
>>  Psychologists can do  that, too but I doubt the skeptic would be willing
>> to run off all the
>> shrinks on that basis alone.
>
> On the contrary, most skeptics are very critical of most psychology,
> particularly clinical psychology.  On the other hand, there has been
> some real progress in psychology; portions of it are now based on pretty
> firm results.
>
>> First of all the Gauquelin
>> research demonstrates that astrology has given us statistical food for
>> thought,
>
> I've discussed Gauquelin before.  Do I need to repeat my arguments?
> Also, can you give the tiniest scrap of evidence that modern astrology
> is based on Gauquelin's research?
>
>> Astrology does not lend itself to statistical research
>> or has yet to do so.
>
> One of the worst arguments I've ever seen.  Can you name ANY valid
> science that doesn't use statistics?  Isn't this an argument against
> astrology?
>
> Tell you what - if you think astrology is valid, how about we come up
> with a test, you and I, and we'll make a bet on the outcome.  Are you
> game?  Can you find any astrologers who would be willing to participate
> in a test of astrology?  In other words, put up or shut up.
>
> Eric Carlson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

http://cura.free.fr/cura2/810houx.html
i had forgotten the link

pj
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Carlson" <ecarlson@...>
To: <skeptics-forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Skeptics Forum] astrology


> pj,
>
> At the risk of going outside my field, it is pretty clear that this is
> not your writing.  Who are you citing?  Does this represent your opinion?
>
> Really, we've discussed a lot of this before, and you're mostly just
> repeating arguments that have been discussed here ad nauseum.  If you
> want to discuss some of them, fine, but just posting an essay like this
> doesn't do a lot of good.  I've only commented on a few things.
>
> On 11/15/2009 4:03 PM, pj wrote:
>> The difference between astrology and the
>> other divination techniques is that the planets movements are
>> predictable, and therefore systems based on things that are not
>> predictable, the draw of the tarot, the entrails of a calf's liver, toss
>> of the dice, are not remotely the same as astrology.
>
> I can't possibly see how this is supposed to be an argument for
> astrology.  Astronomy is predictable, and this makes astrology reliable?
>  They have almost nothing in common!  There is such freedom of
> interpretation in astrology that it is effectively not predictable.
> It's just as bad as the rest.
>
>>  Psychologists can do  that, too but I doubt the skeptic would be willing
>> to run off all the
>> shrinks on that basis alone.
>
> On the contrary, most skeptics are very critical of most psychology,
> particularly clinical psychology.  On the other hand, there has been
> some real progress in psychology; portions of it are now based on pretty
> firm results.
>
>> First of all the Gauquelin
>> research demonstrates that astrology has given us statistical food for
>> thought,
>
> I've discussed Gauquelin before.  Do I need to repeat my arguments?
> Also, can you give the tiniest scrap of evidence that modern astrology
> is based on Gauquelin's research?
>
>> Astrology does not lend itself to statistical research
>> or has yet to do so.
>
> One of the worst arguments I've ever seen.  Can you name ANY valid
> science that doesn't use statistics?  Isn't this an argument against
> astrology?
>
> Tell you what - if you think astrology is valid, how about we come up
> with a test, you and I, and we'll make a bet on the outcome.  Are you
> game?  Can you find any astrologers who would be willing to participate
> in a test of astrology?  In other words, put up or shut up.
>
> Eric Carlson
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

2 Sunken Japanese Subs Are Found Off Hawaii
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/science/13wreck.html

* Mr. Boyd, who was not involved in the discoveries, said that keeping the
technology out of Russian hands was only one likely reason for sinking the
subs in 1946. Another was the condition of the vessels: they were filthy -
they had been crawling with rats when captured - and generally unreliable.
"We gained as much as we could out of them," he said. "The things just
weren't safe."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I400_2.jpg

COMMENT:  Rediscovering what shouldn't have been made or lost in the first
place.  What a tribute to oddball military plans and costly human folly on
all levels.  Anyway, the U.S. navy should have preserved one of these large
Japanese subs in a museum instead of sinking it.  If they were worried about
revealing mostly worthless advanced submarine technology that would easily
be surpassed in a few months per the next generation of subs and which
didn't do much of anything of decisive nature anyway (the sub being full of
rats at the time of capture) then throw a tarp over the thing for a few
years as you fumigate it.

JT

> Astrology does not lend itself to statistical research or has yet to
> do so.

COMMENT:  Okay.  Things that don't work and have no worth at all seem to
have that very same problem of not being able to generate statistics to
backup the particular crank theory.

> First of all the Gauquelin research demonstrates that
> astrology has given us statistical food for thought,

COMMENT:  Hmm.  But you said that astrology doesn't lend itself to
statistical research. So what statistical food for thought?  You just
contradicted yourself.

> Astrology does not lend itself to statistical research or has yet to
> do so.

COMMENT:  In reality, the hooey of astrology lends itself to a manipulative
con game run through the ages by nefarious hucksters and/or ignorant
self-deceiving cranks who financially benefit from taking advantage of
credulous people who are so sadly dependent on nonsense that they can't seem
to manage there own lives without them having to resort to being guided by
the equivalent of a lame fortune cookie style prediction.

JT

pj,

At the risk of going outside my field, it is pretty clear that this is
not your writing.  Who are you citing?  Does this represent your opinion?

Really, we've discussed a lot of this before, and you're mostly just
repeating arguments that have been discussed here ad nauseum.  If you
want to discuss some of them, fine, but just posting an essay like this
doesn't do a lot of good.  I've only commented on a few things.

On 11/15/2009 4:03 PM, pj wrote:
> The difference between astrology and the
> other divination techniques is that the planets movements are
> predictable, and therefore systems based on things that are not
> predictable, the draw of the tarot, the entrails of a calf's liver, toss
> of the dice, are not remotely the same as astrology.

I can't possibly see how this is supposed to be an argument for
astrology.  Astronomy is predictable, and this makes astrology reliable?
   They have almost nothing in common!  There is such freedom of
interpretation in astrology that it is effectively not predictable.
It's just as bad as the rest.

>  Psychologists can do  that, too but I doubt the skeptic would be willing to
run off all the
> shrinks on that basis alone.

On the contrary, most skeptics are very critical of most psychology,
particularly clinical psychology.  On the other hand, there has been
some real progress in psychology; portions of it are now based on pretty
firm results.

> First of all the Gauquelin
> research demonstrates that astrology has given us statistical food for
> thought,

I've discussed Gauquelin before.  Do I need to repeat my arguments?
Also, can you give the tiniest scrap of evidence that modern astrology
is based on Gauquelin's research?

> Astrology does not lend itself to statistical research
> or has yet to do so.

One of the worst arguments I've ever seen.  Can you name ANY valid
science that doesn't use statistics?  Isn't this an argument against
astrology?

Tell you what - if you think astrology is valid, how about we come up
with a test, you and I, and we'll make a bet on the outcome.  Are you
game?  Can you find any astrologers who would be willing to participate
in a test of astrology?  In other words, put up or shut up.

Eric Carlson

Most skeptics fall into the trap that a) astrology is part of the occult, and b)
everything labeled "occult" is the same. Therefore astrology, tarot same-same.
The difference between astrology and the other divination techniques is that the
planets movements are predictable, and therefore systems based on things that
are not predictable, the draw of the tarot, the entrails of a calf's liver, toss
of the dice, are not remotely the same as astrology.

Where the skeptic does have a point is that the astrologer,/tarot reader/hand
reader, can manipulate the client. Psychologists can do that, too but I doubt
the skeptic would be willing to run off all the shrinks on that basis alone.
John Frawley once noted that if you tell the most hardened thug he is sensitive,
he'll recall the time he stroked a puppy. And he will recall that if he were
told by a psychologist, astrologer, tarot reader or his mother. This criticism
goes to competence not validity.

The skeptic then falls back on his worldview and says, if astrology is
predictable why don't they pass any tests? First of all the Gauquelin research
demonstrates that astrology has given us statistical food for thought, but then
where does it say that statistics are the final arbiter of all truth? In fact if
there is one objective truth on earth it is this: statistics don't lie; liars
use statistics. Some of the so-called astrological statistical studies are a
joke. One that comes to mind is the time twin study that used "time twins" that
were born, in some cases, months apart. If you're going to do statistical
studies, at least understand what you're trying to measure.

But even astrologers fall for this because we're all a product of our
scientific-materialistic worldview. The New York Suicide study is a case in
point. The idea is that if we obtain enough accurate birth data of suicides, we
can then test for repetition in the charts. Of course the study failed to
validate astrology and of course the skeptics pronounced it a valid study.
However no one bothered to check to see if suicides all kill themselves for the
same reason or set of reasons. They don't - what a surprise. Astrology does not
lend itself to statistical research or has yet to do so.

It may just be that astrology is not statistical despite the insistence of
moderns that it has to be because they want it to be. A Jupiter - Mars square
does not always mean the same thing even if they are in the same signs and
houses because the rest of the chart is connected to that square. So when they
make statistical claims the appropriate response is a yawn: "Been there; done
that." When astrologers, tarot readers, hand readers etc get it right, it's
coincidence. When they get it wrong it is proof it doesn't work. It isn't true
because it can't be true. How scientific.

The link below takes the interested reader to a thought provoking essay on
astrology written by someone who is not an astrologer and probably not someone
who would "believe in" astrology. But she (the author's first name is Daryn so I
think "she" is correct) makes some interesting points. My favorite is this:

       Quote:
       Modern skeptics say that astrologers are too much like fairground
psychics. Ptolemy is saying they are too much like physicists.


Her point or an important point made in the essay is that people believe
astrology works because, within a certain framework, it works. Read it.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eric Carlson wrote:
> If anyone wants to see me acting silly on Friday the 13th, feel free to
> click on the video below.
>
> http://www.digtriad.com/news/local_state/article.aspx?storyid=133110

Eric,

After knowing you for years as some disembodied voice of reason, it's
great to finally hear how you sound and see how you look.  Very charming.

Walter





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If anyone wants to see me acting silly on Friday the 13th, feel free to
click on the video below.

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local_state/article.aspx?storyid=133110

or

http://tinyurl.com/yf69436

If you are interested in the LHC, they will have beam circulating all
the way around in about a week, and will do their first collisions
shortly thereafter:

http://tinyurl.com/ygw63vj

Apparently, they have already made some major discoveries - for example,
time travel - since the posting is dated November 16, 2009.

Eric Carlson

This from the State Department web site
<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/nov/131299.htm>   There is a more
in depth article in this week's Science.

In remarks at the Forum for the Future in Marrakech today, Secretary
Clinton announced new initiatives to bolster science and technology
collaboration with Muslim communities around the world. The Secretary
named Dr. Bruce Alberts, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, and Dr. Ahmed Zewail as the
first three U.S. Science and Technology Envoys and announced that the
State Department will expand positions for environment, science,
technology, and health officers at U.S. embassies.

"We want to help Muslim majority communities develop the capacity to
meet economic, social and ecological challenges through science,
technology, and innovation," Secretary Clinton said.

The U.S. Science Envoy program is part of President Obama's "New
Beginning" initiative with Muslim communities around the world that
he launched in a June 4 speech in Cairo, Egypt. He pledged that the
United States would "appoint new science envoys to collaborate on
programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize
records, clean water, and grow new crops." The initiative received
key support from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator
Richard Lugar.

In the coming months, the first Science Envoys will travel to countries
in North Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia. They
will engage their counterparts, deepen partnerships in all areas of
science and technology, and foster meaningful collaboration to meet the
greatest challenges facing the world today in health, energy, the
environment, as well as in water and resource management. Additional
U.S. scientists and engineers will be invited to join the Science Envoy
program to expand it to other Muslim countries and regions of the globe.

Dr. Bruce Alberts is widely recognized for his work in the fields of
biochemistry and molecular biology. Dr. Alberts is a professor in the
Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of
California, San Francisco. As president of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) from 1993 to 2005, he was instrumental in developing the
landmark National Science Education standards that have been implemented
in school systems throughout the U.S.

Dr. Elias Zerhouni, M.D., was director of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) from 2002 to 2008. Dr. Zerhouni is currently a senior
advisor to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and was
instrumental in creating the University's Institute for Cell
Engineering. Dr. Zerhouni received his medical degree at the University
of Algiers School of Medicine and completed his residency at the John
Hopkins School of Medicine.

Dr. Ahmed Zewail is the Linus Pauling Chair Professor of Chemistry and
Professor of Physics at the California Institute of Technology and
Director of the Institute's Physical Biology Center for Ultrafast
Science and Technology. Dr. Zewail was awarded the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry in 1999 for his pioneering work in femtoscience, which allowed
observation of exceedingly rapid molecular transformations. Most
recently, Dr. Zewail was appointed to the Presidential Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology.

The envoys will be supported by new embassy officers who will also
engage with international partners on the full range of environmental,
scientific and health issues, from climate change and the protection of
oceans and wildlife to cooperation on satellites and global positioning
systems. They will work with multilateral institutions, non-governmental
organizations and private sector partners to promote responsible
environmental governance, foster innovation, and increase public
engagement on shared environmental and health challenges.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://littlelink.webtrouble.com/?Co83

[1] What do these religiously motivated terrorist acts tell us?  Why are we
so selective about lessons we draw from religious extremism?

* Joe Lieberman and others have called for investigations into why an
Islamic extremist was allowed to remain in the U.S. military.  Earlier this
year at Salon, Matt Kennard documented how white supremacists and Neo-Nazis
were being allowed to openly serve in the U.S. military, likely due to
recruitment shortages for our various wars. [1]

COMMENT:  Sad days in the U.S. military and in other places with their
oddball religious and political zealots of all ilks.  I'm thinking Lee
Oswald, Yigal Amir, Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Hasan, etc.  Additionally,
the L.A. Fitness killer was a lonely fundamentalist Christian who was into
male dominion over the female as well as being a racist nut with a vendetta
against women and minorities but that part was hardly covered by the media.
There are lots of religious and ideological time bombs per all sorts of
irrational blind faiths waiting to cook off in this country and elsewhere.
The mainstream blind faith terrorist attack events seem to get glossed over
as if those don't count.  It's really a sad indictment of all kinds of
religious fundamentalist and ideological zealotry.  Unfortunately, when
oddball occult faiths and ideologies knock heads in the world, they energize
each other and their nutty fringe elements often mentally crack to unleash
all sorts of acts of pointless, knee-jerk vendetta violence on others with
tragic results.  Additionally, the peaceful secular elements in the society
often become their easy targets during crusade/jihad clashes of human folly.


JT

This is entrepreneurial genius!

Atheist offers service to care for Christians' pets after the  Rapture

A New Hampshire atheist is offering Christians who believe in  the
Rapture a service to look after their pets when they get taken up
into  eternity, the New Hampshire Union Leader reports. Bart Centre,
61, a retired  retailing executive, is co-owner of Eternal Earthbound
Pets, which charges  $110 for the pet  service.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/atheist-offe
rs-service-to-care-for-christians-pets-after-the-rapture/1

HR




...

http://www.b-
<http://www.b-roll.net/tv/view_video.php?viewkey=bfde741e893edb46a06c>
roll.net/tv/view_video.php?viewkey=bfde741e893edb46a06c



When weathermen go bad, here's a funny case of a former TV weatherman being
confronted about his own cloudy ethics per a condo con game.



JT







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]