New Planet Found in Our Solar System?

I forgive them. The title is misleading, but I imagine the alternative:<p>"Kuiper Belt Orbits Indicate A New Planet" Nah.<p>"Mystery Planet Influences Kuiper Orbits" Nah.<p>"Data suggests Remote New Planet" Nah.<p>Ah screw it.<p>"New Planet Found in Our Solar System", oh add ?, and Print it!

These sensationalist headlines on science stories really get me down. Cue the Nibiru cult parades in the streets any moment now. It kind of reminds me of the recent HuffPo article on intelligent alien dinosaurs.<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/advanced-dinosaurs-alien-chemistry_n_1421414.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/advanced-dinosaurs-...</a>

Unlike Rudiam, I thought the title was basically appropriate. Through the extensive quotes at the end of the article (clearly, the author did more interviews than he could have gotten away with), the author made it clear that these findings were the result of one scientists, and that his peers were interested, still not convinced, and awaiting more data. Pretty good for pop sci!

Wasn't Pluto discovered based on Percival Lowell's calculations that there need to be a Planet X to account for gravitational anomalies in Neptune's orbit?<p>Do your own fact checking, but iirc Pluto was a lucky find - it was way too small to be the theoretical 'Planet X', but just happened to be in the right area when Clyde Tombaugh was looking there based on Lowell's calculations?<p>I guess my point is: this isn't a new theory, but it certainly has a lot more data than Lowell had in the '20s. And it would be fascinating if a ninth planet were discovered, based on the same process that led us (flukily) to Pluto.

This is like twisting the knife after we stabbed it in Pluto's back, if you ask me.

Wouldn't it have to clear it's orbit to be considered a planet?