Why people don't believe in climate science

Page 7 of 8 [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Apr 2015, 2:56 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Here's a good link for what will happen region by region in the US:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/


The EPA is about as biased an organization as you will ever find. To them, reacting to Global Warming just means more power.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Apr 2015, 2:58 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Obviously, I was not talking about the present day, but rather 11,500 years ago. However, I think you would be surprised how many species are considered threatened.


There are many species considered threatened, but I think that is overwhelmingly due to man's encroachment on their habitat, not to climate.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

20 Apr 2015, 3:05 pm

Inventor wrote:
Turning corn into fuel is a money losing deal. For less money that land could be capturing Carbon, and improving.


You sure have that correct. Even worse, it uses up enormous amounts of groundwater to grow the corn. It is not at all sustainable. To make it worse, when it does rain, very, very little of it gets down to the water table in my area. Between the Ogallala and the surface is a thick layer of caliche that is rather impervious to water. Replenishing it to what it was before we started massively irrigating could take millions of years.

For what it's worth, we stopped irrigating crops on the family farm about 35 years ago. Since then, everything (but the garden) is grown without irrigation. Obviously, we don't grow corn.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,253
Location: Long Island, New York

20 Apr 2015, 3:10 pm

Inventor wrote:
It is not a question of if, or might.


As an autistic person I hate this, but every future prediction in any realm is a matter of if. I have seen soooo many sure things not happen.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

20 Apr 2015, 7:40 pm

We passed if. Worldwide 0.3C over the last hundred and twenty years, but the Southeast is Two degrees hotter, in the last forty years, and the Arctic is a lot hotter, and that is where the Methane is being released.
There is a lot of Methane.

Long term I have said it is cooling, The Holocene has been warmer, Rome was warmer, the Medieval Period was warmer, we are hardly above the Little Ice Age, but we are seeing a short term climate spike.

CO2 does not cover it all. it is warming faster than CO2 would account for. CO2 seems the cover story, we know what is wrong and we can fix it. It was all those computers on the Internet.

Math says not enough CO2 to cause the warming, and geologic history says in the past, the warming came before the CO2 rose.

All the speculation about cycles caused by weird Earth orbits, Solar output, we see no evidence, but it is warming.

Normal climate is three miles of ice, over millions of years, and short interglacial periods where some heat source melts all that ice. It takes a lot of heat to melt enough ice to raise sea level 440 foot. No one has ever accounted for that heat. No evidence supports Earth moving closer to the Sun, the Sun getting hotter, so we must look elsewhere.

The reversal of the magnetic field might fit. The weight of the ice depressed the crust at least hundreds of feet, it is still rebounding. The crust is twenty to thirty miles thick and floats on the liquid mantel. The ice was around the north pole, so as the top third of the planet rebounds, it draws in liquid mantel below. That stuff is hot. Like the ocean, the mantel also has currents, upwellings that cause hot spots, volcanos, Yellowstone, and this rush of molten rock north as the crust rebounds is moving some heat around.

Also, it is drawing mantle from farther south, which was supporting Plates. Most of this is what just got 440 foot of water added. Rebounding in the north, pressed in the middle, magma migration and earthquakes.

Just magma in motion is going to stir up deeper hotter layers, and the mechanical force of movement, would produce a heat migration to the poles. Antarctica is seeing ice melting, very old ice, from the bottom, due to warm current rising from the bottom. The Arctic is warming faster than CO2 could account for. It is what would be expected from magma migration.

There are currents in the magma, it moves plates and subducts them. Some plumes rise and melt through thirty miles of crust, and come out as a volcano. All of the land around the Arctic Circle down to Chicago is rising, and that is a lot of magma flowing in.

Methane plumes coming from The East Siberian Shelf, a large landmass that was above sea level during the ice, and directly in the path of The Muck, a deep organic layer deposited around the Arctic by wind, very powerful wind, are now under several hundred foot of very cold water. The ice may be melting, a surface effect, but that would not heat the ocean bottom for a long time.

The bottom is being heated and Methane plumes are common, spreading, increasing. Heated from below fits the facts.

CO2 heating the air, melting surface ice, more exposed water absorbing more heat does not account for heating frozen muck two hundred foot down.

There was a long term Mesolithic settlement on the Arctic shore in Russia. Currently it is above the Arctic Circle. Did they really live with six months of day and night? Is it possible the location was not above the Arctic Circle then?

We need to step up our Science Game. We have been doing this for what, a hundred years?



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Apr 2015, 1:54 am

Inventor wrote:
We passed if. Worldwide 0.3C over the last hundred and twenty years, but the Southeast is Two degrees hotter, in the last forty years, and the Arctic is a lot hotter, and that is where the Methane is being released.
There is a lot of Methane.

Long term I have said it is cooling, The Holocene has been warmer, Rome was warmer, the Medieval Period was warmer, we are hardly above the Little Ice Age, but we are seeing a short term climate spike.

CO2 does not cover it all. it is warming faster than CO2 would account for. CO2 seems the cover story, we know what is wrong and we can fix it. It was all those computers on the Internet.


I can't figure out how it can be true that it is warming faster than CO2 would account for. It seems to me that the models trying to predict the warming from increasing CO2 mostly seem to wildly overestimate the amount of warming. For the claim that it is warming faster than CO2 would account for should require that those models to be vastly underestimating the amount of warming.

The reality is, of course, that the models are based on what CO2 does in a pristine laboratory environment, not in the real and rather chaotic conditions in our atmosphere.

Also, there are a number of greenhouse gases. By far the most abundant greenhouse gas and the one with the most influence is water vapor.

Quote:
Math says not enough CO2 to cause the warming, and geologic history says in the past, the warming came before the CO2 rose.


What math?

Quote:
Normal climate is three miles of ice, over millions of years, and short interglacial periods where some heat source melts all that ice. It takes a lot of heat to melt enough ice to raise sea level 440 foot. No one has ever accounted for that heat. No evidence supports Earth moving closer to the Sun, the Sun getting hotter, so we must look elsewhere.


The most common climate for the Earth has been one with no ice other than perhaps temporary seasonal ice. Ice ages are not the norm even though we have been in one for more than two and a half million years.

Quote:
The reversal of the magnetic field might fit. The weight of the ice depressed the crust at least hundreds of feet, it is still rebounding. The crust is twenty to thirty miles thick and floats on the liquid mantel. The ice was around the north pole, so as the top third of the planet rebounds, it draws in liquid mantel below. That stuff is hot. Like the ocean, the mantel also has currents, upwellings that cause hot spots, volcanos, Yellowstone, and this rush of molten rock north as the crust rebounds is moving some heat around.


The notion of a role by the possible (hardly definite) future reversal of the magnetic field doesn't fit anything.

You are correct that the massive amounts of ice during the last glacial period depressed the crust and it is still rebounding, but I think that you have the cause and effect backwards. The lower weight where there was once ice is pushing up because of the magma beneath -- it is not drawing magma by rebounding.

Quote:
Also, it is drawing mantle from farther south, which was supporting Plates. Most of this is what just got 440 foot of water added. Rebounding in the north, pressed in the middle, magma migration and earthquakes.


Cites?

Quote:
Just magma in motion is going to stir up deeper hotter layers, and the mechanical force of movement, would produce a heat migration to the poles. Antarctica is seeing ice melting, very old ice, from the bottom, due to warm current rising from the bottom. The Arctic is warming faster than CO2 could account for. It is what would be expected from magma migration.


For Antarctica, there are places where the crust is thinner and naturally sees more heat from beneath. That has nothing to do with Global Warming, though.

As for the Arctic, what evidence is there that it is warming faster than CO2 can account for. Considering that you have the Arctic Ocean and the currents of water, how do you isolate how much of the very limited warming from beneath the crust is having on the ice floating on top of the water?

I suspect that your confusion is that the average temperature is not going to be constant everywhere. From what I understand, the amount of warming at the equator is expected to be relatively minimal and that the further from the equator, the greater the warming. The average is just that -- an average. That the poles could warm several degrees while the equator could hardly warm at all does not mean that it is warmer than CO2 can account for. The warming is an average, not an expected value at every latitude and situation.

Quote:
There are currents in the magma, it moves plates and subducts them. Some plumes rise and melt through thirty miles of crust, and come out as a volcano. All of the land around the Arctic Circle down to Chicago is rising, and that is a lot of magma flowing in.


The rise is quite slow because the magma is so viscous. If the ice age were to end now, the post glacial rebound would continue for thousands of years.

Quote:
Methane plumes coming from The East Siberian Shelf, a large landmass that was above sea level during the ice, and directly in the path of The Muck, a deep organic layer deposited around the Arctic by wind, very powerful wind, are now under several hundred foot of very cold water. The ice may be melting, a surface effect, but that would not heat the ocean bottom for a long time.

The bottom is being heated and Methane plumes are common, spreading, increasing. Heated from below fits the facts.


Cites? Any such heat loss is going to be very little affected by CO2 or by Global Warming. The rates of heat loss at today should closely match the rates over a very long (geological) time.

Quote:
CO2 heating the air, melting surface ice, more exposed water absorbing more heat does not account for heating frozen muck two hundred foot down.

There was a long term Mesolithic settlement on the Arctic shore in Russia. Currently it is above the Arctic Circle. Did they really live with six months of day and night? Is it possible the location was not above the Arctic Circle then?


Are you suggesting that ten thousand or so years ago, the site may have been far away? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the plates move more than something like an inch a year. In twelve thousand years, that motion probably would not exceed 1,000 feet. That is hardly enough to make much difference in the length of day or night. How much difference is there in the length of day and night between your home and a home 1,000 feet north or south?

Also, six months of day and night is a gross misstatement. They don't have a six month day followed by a six month night. Rather, as the Earth moves around the sun, the length of the day and night changes (except at the equator itself) and the amount of change differs based on latitude.

At the equator, there should be 12 hour days and 12 hour nights year around. In Hawaii, the length of the day varies between about 10 and 14 hours depending on the season. As you move further north, the variation in the length of the day changes more and more dramatically. On the Isle of Man, the day is long enough in late May and early June it is bright enough at 5 am that they used to have practice sessions for the Isle of Man TT about that early in the morning. At the Arctic Circle, the length of the day should vary from something like 4 hours in the winter to 20 hours in the summer. When you get the poles, there will be a period of time in the summer which the day is 24 hours and in the winter when the night is 24 hours. Between those times it will vary between the two over time and for a couple of times a year, they will have 12 hour days and 12 hour nights.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

21 Apr 2015, 2:05 am

eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Here's a good link for what will happen region by region in the US:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/


The EPA is about as biased an organization as you will ever find. To them, reacting to Global Warming just means more power.

I urge you to take a tour of Tar Creek Superfund Site before deciding anything about the EPA. I would urge anyone to take a look and find out more about it, in person. It is something we should all know and see. I think it pays to see something like that in person to get an idea of just how destructive industry can be when you cannot separate government and industry.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Apr 2015, 2:16 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Here's a good link for what will happen region by region in the US:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/


The EPA is about as biased an organization as you will ever find. To them, reacting to Global Warming just means more power.

I urge you to take a tour of Tar Creek Superfund Site before deciding anything about the EPA. I would urge anyone to take a look and find out more about it, in person. It is something we should all know and see. I think it pays to see something like that in person to get an idea of just how destructive industry can be when you cannot separate government and industry.


Are you claiming that a cleanup at a superfund site somehow magically makes them less biased?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

21 Apr 2015, 2:35 am

eric76 wrote:

Are you claiming that a cleanup at a superfund site somehow magically makes them less biased?


Biased against who and what and why? It is up to you and I to keep them from being biased. The quickest way to corruption is when big business buys politicians and uses government orgs like the EPA as extensions of themshelves. If you truly want to be sure they are not biased then keep big business out of their ranks because all big business wants is to make more money and to pass the costs onto everyone else. There needs to be a governing body that will slap them back when they need it.

Take a look at history. Look at one example, Nazi Germany. Nazis and industry were pretty much arm and arm. When government and industry team up and merge into one entity, trouble is inevitable.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

21 Apr 2015, 5:13 am

eric76 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Obviously, I was not talking about the present day, but rather 11,500 years ago. However, I think you would be surprised how many species are considered threatened.


There are many species considered threatened, but I think that is overwhelmingly due to man's encroachment on their habitat, not to climate.

Yes, generally the big issues are habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution, but climate change is becoming an increasing problem.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Take a look at history. Look at one example, Nazi Germany. Nazis and industry were pretty much arm and arm. When government and industry team up and merge into one entity, trouble is inevitable.

This is absolute balderdash. It's possibly the worst thing I've ever seen you post. The evils of Nazi Germany were not caused by Hitler's support for industry. Their support for Coca Cola didn't make them kill Jews.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

21 Apr 2015, 12:33 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
eric76 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Obviously, I was not talking about the present day, but rather 11,500 years ago. However, I think you would be surprised how many species are considered threatened.


There are many species considered threatened, but I think that is overwhelmingly due to man's encroachment on their habitat, not to climate.

Yes, generally the big issues are habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution, but climate change is becoming an increasing problem.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Take a look at history. Look at one example, Nazi Germany. Nazis and industry were pretty much arm and arm. When government and industry team up and merge into one entity, trouble is inevitable.

This is absolute balderdash. It's possibly the worst thing I've ever seen you post. The evils of Nazi Germany were not caused by Hitler's support for industry. Their support for Coca Cola didn't make them kill Jews.

How can you deny it? Nazis and industry were hand in hand. It's corruption at it's worse and you see the result. They completely overrode the rights of people. You can deny it all you want but take a look at how many factories were owned by individuals who were also Nazis who exploited workers from KZ.

For you to flat out *deny* blatant facts is just astounding. Everyone knows about Shindler's List. Well, most of them didn't have lists. They just wanted to keep exploiting until death and then they wanted to go find others to exploit. One of the worst events in the industrial age. One of the worst examples of worker exploitation in existence, right up there with slavery in The USA.

So no. Don't you dare call me ridiculous and deny what I am typing because I KNOW based on the evidence Nazis and Industry were arm in arm and they BOTH committed atrocities against individuals. You need take the blinkers off regarding industry.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

21 Apr 2015, 1:37 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
eric76 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Obviously, I was not talking about the present day, but rather 11,500 years ago. However, I think you would be surprised how many species are considered threatened.


There are many species considered threatened, but I think that is overwhelmingly due to man's encroachment on their habitat, not to climate.

Yes, generally the big issues are habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution, but climate change is becoming an increasing problem.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Take a look at history. Look at one example, Nazi Germany. Nazis and industry were pretty much arm and arm. When government and industry team up and merge into one entity, trouble is inevitable.

This is absolute balderdash. It's possibly the worst thing I've ever seen you post. The evils of Nazi Germany were not caused by Hitler's support for industry. Their support for Coca Cola didn't make them kill Jews.

How can you deny it? Nazis and industry were hand in hand. It's corruption at it's worse and you see the result. They completely overrode the rights of people. You can deny it all you want but take a look at how many factories were owned by individuals who were also Nazis who exploited workers from KZ.

For you to flat out *deny* blatant facts is just astounding. Everyone knows about Shindler's List. Well, most of them didn't have lists. They just wanted to keep exploiting until death and then they wanted to go find others to exploit. One of the worst events in the industrial age. One of the worst examples of worker exploitation in existence, right up there with slavery in The USA.


So if supporting industry such Coca Cola made the Nazis kill Jews, then since the US government supports industries such as Coca Cola, then there must be concentration camps in the US where Jews are being killed.

I, for one, have never heard of these US concentration camps and am not familiar with millions of Jews or any other people being loaded on railroad cars and other means of transportation and being hauled off to concentration camps from which they never return.

Perhaps you can tell us where they are.

After all, they must be out there somewhere if your logic is correct.

I'm extremely puzzled by your reference to Schindler's List. I readily admit that I have never seen the movie, but I understand that it was about saving Jews from Nazi concentration camps and extermination by providing them with employment that helps protect them from the Nazis. Wasn't he a hero to those he saved, not a villain? Where am I wrong?

Quote:
So no. Don't you dare call me ridiculous and deny what I am typing because I KNOW based on the evidence Nazis and Industry were arm in arm and they BOTH committed atrocities against individuals. You need take the blinkers off regarding industry.


How do you KNOW this?



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

21 Apr 2015, 5:46 pm

How do you not know?

Both Germany and Japan used slave labor.

Only the Comfort Women were used by the troops, the able bodied, POWs, were sent to factories and mines.

It was called Guest Worker, but a French mechanic could be sent to a German tank factory. Pay was not being shot and being fed sometimes.

All German industry was involved, and all had their wanted list. The unskilled went to farms and forestry.

In Eastern Europe Labor Battalions were used to build roads, dig trenches and mass graves. Skilled workers were shipped back to Germany.

What was seen in the camps was the picked over remains. Nobody wanted them, they were not worth feeding, and could not be released. Typhoid was epidemic in the camps.

Millions of slave laborers were in Germany when the war ended. Millions more were there because they wanted to be. With so many in the army, and booming defense work, Germany had a vast labor shortage, and many flooded in for the paid jobs.

It is nothing German. When Tamerlane marched to Egypt, he sent spies first, to locate the industry and craftsmen, then when he sacked a city and killed most, skilled crafts were spared, and they, their families, tools, workers, were sent back to Asia.

When Russia invaded Germany, whole factories, with workers, were sent back to Russia. They got as many scientist as we did. They relocated the BMW factory that made the motorcycle and side car, The R75. They are still made in Russia, the Ural and Dnieper, and in China, the CJ. Chang Jien?

Food, manpower, raw materials, land, the traditional spoils of war.

In Operation Paperclip, our NAZIs were exempted from war crimes trials. They had all worked slave labor to death. Werner Von Braun had first pick on slaves for the V2. It goes along with his view, "I was aiming for the moon, I hit London." In the end we did deport them, fifty years later, under a deal where they kept their Social Security.

Our industry hired known war criminals and the government protected them for fifty years. By then the Statute of Limitations had run out unless direct murder could be proven.

It was not just scientists and engineers, we brought over a lot of Gestopo. They had intelligence on eastern Europe, the Russians, and we only spoke English. They taught us how to question people. They had connections, like the Bandera in Ukraine, who were killing Jews and Russians after the war.

Those are the people we just supported in overthrowing the elected government.

We also went after Mengla's medical records, other experiments done on prisoners, in Germany, and the Japanese in Manchuria. We do have a Department of Chemical and Biological Warfare based on that information. We claim we do not, but when Anthrax was mailed a while back, it was traced to The Pennington Seed Company Research at LSU Baton Rouge. It was full weapons grade fine powder.

The plan to invade Japan involved Nerve Gas, Biological Weapons, that were in forward position when the atom bomb ended the war. We also killed all Japanese prisoners during the island fighting. If we had lost, those would be war crimes.

We really killed some Vietnamese for having a fishing boat in the Gulf of Tonkin. Millions, and in Iraq, used depleted Uranium shells in cities. We killed a million because Saddam used nerve gas on Kurds, that we had sold him to use on Iran, which has now fallen into the hands of ISIS. We have freed a quarter million Syrians.

The list of things to never be trusted, Government, Industry, Academia, Medicine, Religion, and the Media.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

21 Apr 2015, 7:30 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
How can you deny it? Nazis and industry were hand in hand. It's corruption at it's worse and you see the result. They completely overrode the rights of people. You can deny it all you want but take a look at how many factories were owned by individuals who were also Nazis who exploited workers from KZ.

For you to flat out *deny* blatant facts is just astounding. Everyone knows about Shindler's List. Well, most of them didn't have lists. They just wanted to keep exploiting until death and then they wanted to go find others to exploit. One of the worst events in the industrial age. One of the worst examples of worker exploitation in existence, right up there with slavery in The USA.

So no. Don't you dare call me ridiculous and deny what I am typing because I KNOW based on the evidence Nazis and Industry were arm in arm and they BOTH committed atrocities against individuals. You need take the blinkers off regarding industry.

I am not denying the fascist, corporatist nature of Nazi Germany. I am suggesting that to say "evil is inevitable" using the example of Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

I am not criticising the facts which form the basis of your argument, but rather the conclusions you leapt to.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

22 Apr 2015, 2:21 am

eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
eric76 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Obviously, I was not talking about the present day, but rather 11,500 years ago. However, I think you would be surprised how many species are considered threatened.


There are many species considered threatened, but I think that is overwhelmingly due to man's encroachment on their habitat, not to climate.

Yes, generally the big issues are habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution, but climate change is becoming an increasing problem.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:

Take a look at history. Look at one example, Nazi Germany. Nazis and industry were pretty much arm and arm. When government and industry team up and merge into one entity, trouble is inevitable.

This is absolute balderdash. It's possibly the worst thing I've ever seen you post. The evils of Nazi Germany were not caused by Hitler's support for industry. Their support for Coca Cola didn't make them kill Jews.

How can you deny it? Nazis and industry were hand in hand. It's corruption at it's worse and you see the result. They completely overrode the rights of people. You can deny it all you want but take a look at how many factories were owned by individuals who were also Nazis who exploited workers from KZ.

For you to flat out *deny* blatant facts is just astounding. Everyone knows about Shindler's List. Well, most of them didn't have lists. They just wanted to keep exploiting until death and then they wanted to go find others to exploit. One of the worst events in the industrial age. One of the worst examples of worker exploitation in existence, right up there with slavery in The USA.


So if supporting industry such Coca Cola made the Nazis kill Jews, then since the US government supports industries such as Coca Cola, then there must be concentration camps in the US where Jews are being killed.

I, for one, have never heard of these US concentration camps and am not familiar with millions of Jews or any other people being loaded on railroad cars and other means of transportation and being hauled off to concentration camps from which they never return.

Perhaps you can tell us where they are.

After all, they must be out there somewhere if your logic is correct.

I'm extremely puzzled by your reference to Schindler's List. I readily admit that I have never seen the movie, but I understand that it was about saving Jews from Nazi concentration camps and extermination by providing them with employment that helps protect them from the Nazis. Wasn't he a hero to those he saved, not a villain? Where am I wrong?

Quote:
So no. Don't you dare call me ridiculous and deny what I am typing because I KNOW based on the evidence Nazis and Industry were arm in arm and they BOTH committed atrocities against individuals. You need take the blinkers off regarding industry.


How do you KNOW this?


Where are you getting Coca Cola from???? That's not even German. You need to look at companies such as Bayer and Volkswagon. I have no idea why you put Coca Cola into this equation but we all know how bad for health Coca Cola is, so imagine if they were in cahoots with Uncle Sam? We would most likely be a lot chunkier than we are now.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

22 Apr 2015, 2:26 am

The_Walrus wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
How can you deny it? Nazis and industry were hand in hand. It's corruption at it's worse and you see the result. They completely overrode the rights of people. You can deny it all you want but take a look at how many factories were owned by individuals who were also Nazis who exploited workers from KZ.

For you to flat out *deny* blatant facts is just astounding. Everyone knows about Shindler's List. Well, most of them didn't have lists. They just wanted to keep exploiting until death and then they wanted to go find others to exploit. One of the worst events in the industrial age. One of the worst examples of worker exploitation in existence, right up there with slavery in The USA.

So no. Don't you dare call me ridiculous and deny what I am typing because I KNOW based on the evidence Nazis and Industry were arm in arm and they BOTH committed atrocities against individuals. You need take the blinkers off regarding industry.

I am not denying the fascist, corporatist nature of Nazi Germany. I am suggesting that to say "evil is inevitable" using the example of Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

I am not criticising the facts which form the basis of your argument, but rather the conclusions you leapt to.



You can look at other examples such as Tar Creek, which was pretty much a partnership between the US government and Tri State Mining since the military wanted to use a lot of the material for ammunition to fight World Wars I and II.
Much of the area is no longer habitable so yeah I'd say went overboard. Another example are these private juvenile prisons in the US that are under fire for paying judges to send more inmates their way:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal