Was Y2K a problem?

Is global warming a problem?

We recognized the Y2K problem and worked on it for 7 years. The world's community worked together. We shared the problem with each other and fixed it. It was very real but worldwide cooperation fixed it. Software was replaced worldwide. Computerization priorities were altered, starting at least in 1993. (I was personally made aware by our programmers in 1994, and was on a committee that guided their priorities. We were wording on it in 1994).

Clueless people will claim it was hype because they are clueless. Deeply dishonest people will claim it was due to NASA because they are deeply dishonest and post lies here every single time they post.

Y2K was a huge problem that the world cooperatively solved. The big differences were 1) that there was a hard and fast deadline and 2) the people who could see the problem far enough in advance were also the people who could fix the problem without hindrance from the clueless and the deeply dishonest.

Both are exaggerated. Baccheus is correct that they were working on the Y2K problem for years, but what he conveniently forgets is all of the hype. Not only were we being told that we were not ready for the change over, but that the results could be catastrophic. There were many screaming the downfall of society because not enough was being done and we were not ready.

Further, the people screaming the loudest about SERIOUS consequences were the people who were seemingly "in the know". The people who "understood the problem" the most were screaming the loudest.

Similarly, we have the climate scientists screaming loudly and overestimating 95% of their models.

The problem is that both sides do not clearly think. You have one side saying CO2 is not even causing any warming and can cause no problems, just as you had people saying the Y2K would cause zero problems. At the same time you have the other side screaming about the downfall of society.

Both sides are wrong.

And Bacheus, I know about what was occurring at that time. I know very well that the experts were claiming that we were not even remotely prepared. You can pretend there was no hype and no exaggeration, but that just ain't so.

Chemflunky,

You say far too little, I say plenty.

Solar power has been consistently decreasing in price and will soon be more cost effective than coal. When that occurs, it will start flourishing. All of that is from our work. The US and most European nations have not only stop the increase of CO2 emissions in our countries, but reduced the emissions. We have standards to increase fuel efficiency of cars in the future and greener options are now coming available. This is all occurring during a period where 95% of the models are overestimating the current warming and there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 17 years.

We are literally moving forward with major changes in light of extreme uncertainty. We are literally spending billions to trillions to reduce our CO2 emissions, when we are not even sure that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a good thing. Can you really claim that the amount of food able to be generated will not increase given CO2 fertilization and being able to grow more in the north and at higher elevations??? And given the population increase, isn't the most important factor to consider for lives in the future, the plant growth???

So I entirely disagree. Just because we are not willing to tax CO2, does not mean we are not doing enough. Are we not taxed enough??? Can't you liberals think of a way of doing something that does not lead to another regressive tax???

Nah! For Y2K. As far as GW, it is not a factor as far as the environment is concern, but it is a danger politically to all honest citizens of the earth.

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Was Y2K a problem? Yes, for equipment that relied on a two digit date. No, for equipment that used the four digit format.

Is global warming a problem? Yes, for those that will suffer as a consequence. No, for those that will benefit.

NASA actually tried to used the Y2K scare to support the man-made Global Warming scam.

When the NASA/Goddard GISS (James Hansen's team) got caught red-handed manipulating data by Anthony Watts at SurfaceStations.org. The Hansen/NASA team was embarrassed by it (temporarily) and actually re-adjusted their numbers downward.

Then they came up with the lame excuse that it was a Y2K error that caused the problem. RIGHTTTT, sure it was, there was not another computer system on the planet that reported any silly Y2K problems, but NASA with the most advanced systems and software our taxpayer money can buy had a terrible glitch.

At HotAir

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/09/bo...

Full Report here:

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/20...

Of course as of late, they have shamelessly "re-adjusted" all the data again and are claiming most of the hottest years are within the last decade or so.

The Russians have accused them of data manipulation

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...

The Polar Bear researcher recently busted:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033370_polar_...

More than 5,000 entries tailored to hype global-warming agenda at Wikipedia

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...

Y2K was just hype that made a lot of money for firms that would 'certify' your system as safe from Y2K. In reality, the only way that the so called Y2K bug could affect your system is if you had not updated your software for about 40 years. In the early days of computers, memory was very expensive so programs were written as small as possible. Programmers back in the 50's and 60's and maybe a little later did not include the "19" in front of the yearly date. So if you were using a program written the the 1950's when the year 2000 came your computer would have a major problem.

But Y2K turned out to be just another prediction of Doom by liberals that didn't happen, just like man-made Global Warming.

-----------------

So, to summarize:

Baccheus yes, yes

Trevor yes, yes

ChemFlunky yes, yes

LinLyons yes, yes

Maxx no, no

Sagebrush no, no

Raisin Caine the experts were screaming in both cases

ice to young to remember Y2K

Hey Dook yes, yes (assumed from his making fun of both deniers)

Y2K was perhaps a bit overhyped, but it was a very real problem that a lot of people put a lot of effort into solving. We don't know what disasters would have occurred if many very smart people *hadn't* put in all that effort.

AGW is a very real problem (though occasionally overhyped in some circles), that we are sadly doing far too little to solve.

1. Yes, overhyped by the press, but the problem was fixed before it could do any damage. I don't know what the potential for damage was.

2. Yes, in the future, if we do nothing to fix it.

After the Illuminati plot to take over the world with Y2K failed, they used Al Gore's Reptilian time machine to retroactively forge a century of science. We are all prisoners of the alternate reality created by the Babylonian Rothofeller Brothers and perpetrated through the Council of Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, and Obama's Satanic Cult. The only hope is to recycle ten "questions" per day here from Wattsup.