First, a word of general criticality. Daily Mail is not considered as a reliable news source. It's a conservative populist paper that has supported both British fascists and German nazi party in the 30's. In 1924 it published a letter from Zinoviev (leader of Komintern) to the British communist party as a message to start a revolution. The letter was a forgery, but the publicity lead to defeat of the labor party in the election four days later.

More recently it has published pictures taken from a video game as proof that Al-Qaida is planning a nuclear attack in Washington. [link to www.theregister.co.uk]
So basically, Daily Mail consists of lies and trash.

Much like GLP forum, if I may say so. What you read here should be viewed with utmost criticalness. That, of course, would be very difficult if people lack critical skills altogether. Polls, for instance, are never an accurate source of anything but possibly OPINIONS. Reality, on the other hand, does not constitute of opinions, or subjective feelings, or (optical) illusions. Polls are not scientifically accurate and they can't be used as reliable sources of information.

Nancy of course used the opportunity to link the published cloud pictures to zetas and EARTH WOBBLE, but why would there be anything unusual in those pictures. The sky is and has always been amazing. Take a look at these photographs for instance:
[link to www.weathervortex.com]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

What the meteorologists are talking about is classification, and not necessarily a new type of cloud formation at all.

"Margaret LeMone, a cloud expert with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said that she has taken photos of asperatus clouds intermittently over the past 30 years."

Asked how has such a striking cloud type could go unrecognized, Pretor-Pinney cites its rarity--and the proliferation and portability of digital cameras. "Technology has allowed us to have this new perspective on the sky."
[link to news.nationalgeographic.com]