Why Its Pointless To Argue With Global Warming Believers 2037

You're confused. I said he can't be "legally" guilty if there is no proof. Apparently you are forgetting you kept referring to your argument as a "legal argument":

"So far, however, nobody has come up with a refutation of the legal argument. I would love to hear one. Ed has provided a faith-based-defense that I just don't think counts"

In my view, a legal argument requires SOME form of proof...in court or out. Google shows even *you* said you had no proof:

"Right. It does not offer proof. The definition of proof is: "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it". While the evidence in my argument points to the conclusion and strongly supports it, it is not, technically, in a logical sense, proof."

(snip stuff Snit doesn't seem to comprehend and a bunch of his circus antics)

-- "Heck, OS X is not even partially based on FreeBSD" - Snit "Sandman and Carroll are running around trying to crucify trolls like myself" - Snit