Here is a question for all you GLOBAL WARMING Folks...?

Question

No, I am not denying the possibility of global warming. I dispute the possibility/probability that it is caused directly by the actions of mankind. When I question the theory of man made global warming often times (it is only a theory YET to be PROVEN!!!) responses will include this phrase "Even if that is so (that is I am right) isn't it better to be on the safe side?"
Does this sound anything like logic? NO.
If this is your method of reasoning, does it not make perfect sense to continue using the death penalty on convicted felons? One may argue that "We should not take the risk of ending the life of an innocent person!"
I may simply respond "But, isn't it better to be on the safe side and be rid of another convicted felon, one who may commit some other heinous act?"
What say you to this line of thought?

Death penalty is cheaper...

Answer 1

sounds a bit communist to me...watch you dont "dissappear" to the thought police.

Global Warming isn't proven...it is a new religion, sacrifice your carbon offsetting to the Earth God GIA, lest he anger and destroy us all.

Journalists dont deny it as all global warming experst are paid to prove global warming, otherwise they are out of a job.

present scientific reasoning disproves manmade global warming, it began hundreds of years before the industrial revolution anyhow.

Answer 2

first of all, life sentences without parole accomplish the same ends, and more humanely.

Second, it is possible that human behavior is not a factor... but if it is, and in 20-50 years we have billions of deaths and unimaginable loss of property/ecological damage, aren't we going to say, "gee, we should have..."

right now, we can, with reasonable accuracy, atrribute pollutants accyumulating in the arctic to the industries of the temerate zone. There is a large amount of data corroborating the desertification of the African steppese to both pollution and bad western-installed land management practices.

While global warming is different than those two examples to an extent, it certainly is not unthinkable that we are indeed contributing to a significant portion of it.

ADDED: Actually, if you have any kind of fair and equitable appeal system, the death penalty is NOT cheaper. Even with an appeal system, falsely-convicted innocents do get executed... whereas with life without parole you can always free someone later found innocent. So the death penalty is only "cheaper" in how it makes life cheap.

Answer 3

You should find out about some of the people on death row who were shown to be innocent. People with no previous record. Ordinary people like you. Read about Ray Krone, a veteran and a mailman who did nothing at all. Read about Kirk Bloodsworth, also a veteran, a fisherman. Did nothing wrong. Ever.

You are mistaken about costs, by the way. The death penalty costs much more than life in prison, largely because of the legal process, which is supposed to prevent executions of innocent people.

Answer 4

Hmmm.. I actually thought this too until just recently. The execution itself may be cheaper than a life sentence in jail, however if you take into account attorney fees and the like it is more costly for an execution. So this is being on the safe side and also allowing for the possibility of being wrong.

But also I don't like the reasoning of being on the safe side because I believe that taking away the liberties of one person out of fear is worse than a murder in public by a person who would otherwise be dead.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both.

Answer 5

the first truth is actual - remoted chilly aspects do not disprove international warming, and also you should look at average international temperatures. the 2d truth is fake - both the "guy-Made international Warming individuals" you've been talking to are at a loss for words/unsuitable, or you misunderstood what they were asserting. As reported contained in the link offered by technique of Cosmo, the Medieval warmth era become also in basic terms in remoted areas and by no skill on a international scale. because the link states - "the idea of a international or hemispheric 'Medieval warmth era' that become hotter than on the on the spot, although, has became out to be incorrect." Or from Wikipedia, in case you want - "The Medieval warmth era (MWP) or Medieval climate optimal turned right into a time of surprisingly warmth climate contained in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about the 10th century to about the fourteenth century." So those are in truth no longer contradictory arguments, yet in truth a similar argument. you should look on a international scale, no longer a community scale.

Answer 6

Taking measures to protect the environment isn't going to lead to death for anyone so your metaphor is flawed. That being said, our resources are finite so even if global warming isn't that big of deal as you seem to think, we still need to find alternate energy sources because the ones that we are currently using are going to run out eventually and we know that. As such, it would behoove us to concentrate of getting our ducks in a row now rather than later so that the transition can be as smooth as possible. It would also lessen our dependence on other nations for fuel which can only be a good thing.

Answer 7

It's completely irrelevant because we are not killing anyone by being environmentally conscious. We're not taking lives to be on the safe side...

But, check out "Mine your own buisness"

EDIT:
OK, so your argument for the death penalty, is that money is more important than lives?

Answer 8

i think a lot of it is totally bias, especially algores movie on global warming. but i do think that it is a force to reckoned with and that if we don't fix the problem soon we will be regretting it.