Quoting Andrew McGlashan (andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au):
On 12/01/2013 4:29 PM, Craig Sanders wrote:
the following relevant excerpt from the Bad Astronomy blog may help you understand:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/02/perihelion_earth_is_clos...
I've read that post before, and many similar, nothing changes for me. Did you read that I didn't want to debate this matter?
I do not take as gospel truth the information provided by such (web)sites; particularly such sites that so strongly advocate a cause or belief which I personally and strongly believe to be false.
1. Phil Plait is a world-class professional astronomer. If he were either trying to fool you or were egregiously mistaken on something as squarely in the middle of his profession as the relative influence of aphelion/perihelion (orbital distance along the eliptical path) versus axial tilt on Earth temperatures, he would be sabotaging his own professional credibility. This hypothesis seems to fail Ockham's Razor to an epic degree. 2. Moreoever, Dr. Plait didn't ask readers to take his word on that question, in the first place. He gives you more than enough data that you can check for yourself. 3. Moreover, it's also really not that difficult to verify with or without anything Dr. Plait says. It's pretty much basic astronomy, so claiming your problem is that you 'don't take as gospel truth the information provided by such Web sites' is a non-sequitur objection.