You've been corrected numerous times on this. A "theory" is not below "law" in science. A theory is a model of how something works, and often makes use of multiple laws and empirical observations. A law describes the mathematical relation between various things. A theory is a full model of a dynamic. "Gravity" is a theory. First there was Newton's theory of gravity, then Einstein's theory of gravity. There are proposed theories of gravity that have yet to displace Einstein's. "F=ma" is a law (Newton's second law of motion). Einstein's or Newton's theory of gravity is not considered "weaker" than Newton's laws of motion.
Regarding MDs, I was thinking specifically of Michael Chrichton, a Harvard educated MD who clearly was a student of a number of things scientific. Noted man-made global warming skeptic. I don't think he was a practicing doctor anywhere, so who cares if he read JAMA (though I am sure he did anyway). You limited your qualifications to Atmospheric Scientists, and I think that's outright a wrong thing to do. There's a lot to be learned about past climates from biology (Chrichton being an expert there), geology, physics, meteorology, etc. And please note, I have never said there is no global warming. It's quite obvious the Earth overall has been warming since the end of the ice age (and before). The question is whether man is the main cause of it - some scientists claim man caused it during the stone ages for goodness sake.
You have the amazing ability to miss the point every time. It's boggling how out of touch you are. Somehow you've boiled down the global warming argument to Al Gore's ego and a communist plot to destroy America through environmentalism. Simply amazing. Or they try to figure out who is saying what and why they're saying it, like real people do in real debates. Join the club sometime. Sometimes I wonder if you're a real person or a computer program designed to post dastardly stupid things on this forum just to piss me off.
A theory has unprovable components that lead to a generally accepted fact. Gravity, as you mentioned, surely exists, but only because we call it "gravity". A law, on the other hand, is much more narrow and precise. So yes, in some ways, a law is "above" a theory, although comparing the two is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. And again, global warming made by man is still a hypothesis and has yet to be proven by any serious science, or even just observation.
I love it when nonscientists try to explain science. Edit: and for what it's worth, Minstrel's got it right.
There are some experiments, such as proving relativity exists, that can be done outside of a lab. Such as satellites in space. Or Collecting data about water run off. Or collecting data about trees, such as age or diseased.
ACTUALLY F= (dm/dt)(dv/dt) where m is mass and v is velocity assuming vectors of all things. sorry but i couldn't resist being anal. neither could your mom OOOOOH
And I prefer to call the time between 2000-2008 had a vp that clearly broke laws established by the neurenberg trials.
So something like "theory of relativity" which can be proven and exactly described, if complex, is vague? Global Warming has been proven by serious science.
(dv/dt) is the same thing as acceleration. The rate of change in position by time is velocity and the rate of change in velocity by time is acceleration. I don't know what (dm/dt)--the rate that mass changes over time--is supposed to signify. Newton's laws didn't assume any changes to mass by time. Even Einstein's relativity only posited that mass varies by acceleration...not time. Are you trying to add in the effects of erosion over many years? And my mom is hardly relevant to this. As far as I know and am concerned, she has never had sex. Because that's just wrong.
He got the law/theory description right. Just curious, what was your major? My college roommate had a BS and he was poli sci.
