In message <xzZRa.455066$3C2.12386710@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Dennis Taylor <noemail@nospam.org> writes

"randyj" <rjewett@ufl.edu> wrote in message
news:bf9eo0$jf6$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu...

"Dennis Taylor" <noemail@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:F_VRa.454323$3C2.12374723@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...

--snip

Doesn't the moon also keep the earth's axis from wobbling around any more
than it does, such that if we didn't have the moon, there would be way

more

climate
variation than we now have?

I've heard that, although I've not seen a specific explanation of why that
should be so. I'm also a little suspicious, since Venus & Mars don't have a
large moon, and their axes aren't all that out of whack (same with Mercury,
as a matter of fact). It *is* possible that we just happen to be in a period
where all the inner planets have reasonable tilts, but I'd be more inclined
to question the reason for the theory in the first place, in the absence of
any observed evidence.

I think that Mars and Venus are part of the evidence for the theory being correct! The axis of Mars is supposed to have varied between near zero and fifty degrees, though I can't remember if this is just theory or there is some evidence for it, and Venus can be thought of as "upside down" - it's rotating very slowly "the wrong way" compared to the other planets, so its inclination is usually expressed as 177 degrees, not 3.