You folks really should educate yourselves on the topic before commenting.
It’s both an degree and a title. So is a PhD.
One thing is for certain. It isn’t a bachelors of medicine. I don’t know where you come up with that idea.
Can we just give this a rest. It’s not important.
Are you aware of things called scientific laws?
This is literally an ignorant statement. There are no licensed physicians in this country, board certified or not, who are permitted to use the designation of “M.D.” with only a bachelor’s degree. The AMA makes sure of that.
And the MD is the eqivalent of another BS.
You can get a BS in Pre Med. That is not a medical degree.
You people are flailing desperately.
Save it. This thread could go another 1000 posts and Wildrose will never back down and never substantiate anything they’ve said.
Trust me. The last time I asked them to substantiate their claim, his source turned out to be a guy who believed humans were genetically engineered slaves of bird like aliens. His response was “can you price him wrong”.
What flailing? I just googled bachelors of medicine and I posted what came up. Seems pretty straightforward.
And a J.D. is like getting another Bachelor’s, but with a law thingy major!
I award you no points. And may God have mercy on your soul.
I agree with you here regarding the predictive nature of climate science. The inherent problem with this is simply due to the fact that there is only one experimental group to work off of (there is only one earth) and one cannot set up a control group. For example if I need to test how a certain additive affects a coating or polymer I can set up a control group without the additive and then numerous experimental groups with different concentrations of the additive. We can’t do that with the earth and CO2. Also what makes it even more difficult is that there a many variables regarding the climate, geological factors, atmospheric conditions, etc., that climate scientists have no control over that can impact this science.
Like to continue, but work is intervening. Let me just add that I also don’t think we should throw our hands up, as my post may have implied. I do think that climate earth is well enough understood to forecast trends–but trying to pin down a year or a decade doesn’t seem realistic. Most of the variables are known to some degree of uncertainty–I think!
Catch y’all on the flip side.
OK. I finished grading my lab reports ahead of schedule. So here’s some philosophical ■■■■■■■■■ If you want certainty, science is not your game. Science is not about proof, it is about falsification. There is nothing exact about science. All science is based on measurement, and all measurements are uncertain. There is no such thing as an exact mass. But that doesn’t mean that science doesn’t work. It works incredibly. Climate science is no different than any other kind of science, except there are concerns about future climates and what impacts that may have on our lives.
While I side with the specialists, I still don’t know what that means for our lives. Will sea level rise affect low-lying cities? Well yeah, probably. Go figure, I live in New Orleans. We are not going to get any sympathy the next time stuff happens, right?. Will warming affect our agricultural resource base? Yeah, probably. Will weather patterns change? Well, probably.
Is this the end of the world? Probably not. That doesn’t mean it’s not important. And there’s another reason a transition to renewable energies is urgent. To whit, fossil fuels are finite. They are freaking fossils. They are concentrated stored sunlight and they are not coming back. It’s all about the sun.
I’m with you there as well. Even on a practical matter putting the climate concerns aside, fossil fuels are not renewable and will at some point be exhausted. In that regard alternative energy sources will have to be a big part of the equation.
This is false. A scientific theory can never be proven. Performing repeated experiments lend further support to validate the theory, but never “prove” the theory. It takes only one irreconcilable observation to invalidate a theory and it’s simply impossible to test an infinite number of possibilities, hence theories can never be “proven”.
Well thats not accurate at all.
Scientific evidence either supports or refutes a theory or hypothesis. In the case of AGW, there is plenty of evidence to support the theory of AGW. The AGW theory states that we will experience rapid increases in global surface temps. We are. The theory states the oceans will warm. They are. It states that ice sheets and glaciers will shrink and see less snow cover. That’s occurring. There an abundance of evidence ot support the theory. Why do you think 97% of scientists agree
Of course you can… eventually. We know that additional CO2 loading to the atmosphere contributes to increased temperatures… well, because thats how greenhouse gases work. They trap heat that is trying to escape back to space. Since we are one of the largest contributors, then clearly excluding that significant amount form the equation would undoubtedly result in cooling. But I say eventually because of how long CO2 lingers int he atmopshere… it can persist anywhere form several decades to a few centuries. Meaning, even if we cut it all off tomorrow, temps would continue to rise due to the CO2 that persists afterwards.
To state there’s no evidence to support the AGW theory is beyond foolish… a statement like this only confirms that you’re wildly out your realm in understanding the scientific method. You don’t have to agree with the theory, but the supporting empirical evidence is undeniable.
Scientific laws basically describe observations made during experiment, and can be used to predict certain phenomena. But scientific laws don’t explain “why”… there’s no explanation, just a summary of observations.