If mankind were put on trial for the crime of global warming...?

Question

is the circumstantial evidence enough to remove a reasonable doubt?

Answer 1

I think man kind would be sentenced to death

Answer 2

Look at how global warming is described.  It's impossible to talk about global warming without using the words "may", "probably", "possibly" "could be",

The case would be one that any person could win after watching 3 episodes of "Law and Order".  You wouldn't even need to be a lawyer.

Answer 3

Maybe, but then do volcanoes, natural forest and prairie fires, oceanic vents and animals (discharge methane and carbon dioxide) also go on trial for this 'crime'?

Answer 4

They would plead "ignorance" or "we didn't know", just like the tobacco industry and chemical industry in the past.

Right now they are still in the total denial phase and for some reason they have the extreme religious people on there side because something to do with god didn't give man a gift like coal and oil and have it be bad for us.

Answer 5

They should render the death penalty to the makers of cars and the Presidents who ignored all the warnings.

Answer 6

The consensus of scientists could serve as adequate evidence.  Ignoring the "most likely" scenario could make political and corporate leaders culpable, particularly if there is evidence that they understood the majority of the evidence was against them, but still crafted a specific strategy to resist and deny it (as in the case of ExxonMobil, and as is likely with the Bush Admininistration with their incorporation of oil industry representatives to craft their energy policies).

Look what happened with the tobacco companies.  They're still in court, paying damages.

I predict that within 20-30 years politicians will bow to public pressure to allow affected to hold corporations responsible (politicians will need a clear scapegoat to take focus off of them).  ExxonMobil will be the first one on trial, perhaps along with any coal companies investing in propaganda or political favors to fast-track coal-fired power plants.

Answer 7

Ok... when the philippene volcanos erupted... they put more carbon dioxide in the air than humanity has ever produced and there was no temperature change.

Answer 8

The defendant would be found not guilty based on scientific evidence.

Answer 9

In my opinion the circumstantial evidence would be enough to find mankind guilty. First, there has been considerable increase in global warming since mankind started driving cars and put away the horse and buggy. Secondly, at least in the US, we throw away way more than we recycle. Many plastics should be banned. It takes a disposable diaper forever to disintegrate. The same with the plastic bags the grocery store gives us the option of taking. If I could do what I want I would go back to using a horse for transportation, stop paving our planet and go back to a more natural way of life.

Answer 10

Who would be the jury? Who would be the judge? This is a pure work of fiction to stir up emotions. Man was put on Earth to take advantage of every available recource to create a good standard of living.

I like the lack of evidence answers and I planned on using them but since they were written already I will not say the same.

Not everything Man does is evil.

Answer 11

No, man would be acquitted because of lack of evidence.