CCD Myth: The planets are warming

8 comments on “CCD Myth: The planets are warming ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ron 1

   20 September 2009 at 11:20 am

   This guy obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about
   Look – he keeps referring to Pluto as a Planet! Every school kid knows that Pluto was thrown out of the Association of Planetary Existence!
   To include Pluto in his argument clearly shows he’s a member of the GW Conspiracy. He’s obviously a card carrying passenger of the GW Gravy Train, cashing in and making huge amounts of money from his libelous videos.
   I am also horrified by his obviously violent agenda wanting to explode the heads of his critics. This is typical of the insane denzines of GW World – another good reason we absolutely need three spy gencies in NZ keeping and eye on this dangerous cabal.

   If he’s so sure that the warming on Mars is not proof of the lie here on Earth why doesn’t he go live there? Eh? Because in his heart he knows he’s wrong, that’s why.
   • Laurel Kornfeld 1.1

     20 September 2009 at 4:41 pm

     Sorry, Ron, but every school kid does NOT view Pluto as no longer being a planet. Pluto is still a planet. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf’ in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity–a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.
     • NickS 1.1.1

       20 September 2009 at 5:16 pm

       He’s joking, it’s a bit difficult to pick up at first, but the signs are there.

       See Poe’s Law for further info
     • NickS 1.1.2

       20 September 2009 at 7:02 pm

       Oh joy, having now read your post and glanced at your LJ…

       /facepalm

       Pluto was placed outside the definition of “planet” on a basis you conveniently ignore, namely there’s quite a few objects outside Pluto’s orbit that are of similar or large size; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_planet

       Secondly, Pluto’s orbit when modelled is more consistent with a Kuiper belt etc object that fell in towards the Sun and was captured, rather than formed in situ as the other planets did. Plus the concept of orbital dominance, as described on the wiki page I linked to…

       Thirdly;

       One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all!

       The Stupid, It Burns.

       It’s really, really simple, dwarf planets are a subset of stellar objects, ones which while big enough to have their gravity draw them into semi-spherical shapes, aren’t big enough to effectively dominate their local orbit like the objects known as planets. Placing them in the middle ground between planets and other stellar bodies (asteroids). It does not make “not-planets”, merely a subset of the term planet, making your above quoted claim of such blinding stupid, it does truly burn.

       On top of this, the drawing of tighter definitions of stellar objects doesn’t lead to any less importance of them, since they’re still of considerable scientific interest. Which makes going “zomg! theyr nt Planets!111!, so noones going to be interested anymre!!!!111” not only nucking futs, but also indicates the authors inability to f*cking think. Then again, you have an LJ dedicated to proclaiming the we shouldn’t change definitions of things when we find them to wanting on the basis of vox pop, instead of this fun thing called “reasoning”.

       /sigh

       Why can’t people just stick to the normal craziness, like young earth creationism/ID, climate change denial, holocaust denial, conspiracy theories and Elvis? It’s so much easier to wield the cluebat on…
2. Westminster 2

   20 September 2009 at 11:26 am

   Andrei would, I think, change his tune if the Holy Spirit whispered a different tune in Ian’s ear.
   • Andrei 2.1

     20 September 2009 at 7:47 pm

     Luke 6:47-49

     47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

     48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

     49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great
3. Jenny 3

   20 September 2009 at 12:50 pm

   And here I was thinking that a CCD was a Charged Coupled Device.

   – A helpful little piece of technology – not a huge obstructive political bloc.
4. NickS 4

   20 September 2009 at 5:20 pm

   Good choice, though Don’t it make my green world brown is my favourite one.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS