>>Can't comment on any of that since I haven't read his paper on them, other then what others have submitted to Wikipedia. He must have his reasons. But can't argue about his academic background or his professional background.
>
>He reason is that he makes tons of money being a professional skeptic. He doesn't prove things, but raises doubts.

"Professional" as in "for money"?

Mmmm... how much would he charge for a few beliefs I'd like to see shattered?