I remember vividly the panic leading up to year 2000. People were racing to Y2K their computers and systems. TV news crews had reporters stationed at bank machines, at train traffic centers in NYC, at airports, all waiting to see if the machines and the computers that run them, stopped working when the clock went from 1999 23:59:59 to 2000 00:00:00 because in the early days of programming, to save memory, they used two digit years instead of four, and the fear was that computers would reset themselves to the year 1900 rather than 2000, and stop functioning.
I remember being in the TV newsroom (as it was mandatory for all staff to be there that night) as the millennium crept up in each time zone on our satellite feeds…we waited, scanning, looking, wondering…..and nothing happened. The bug of the millennium became the bust of the millennium. That story was repeated in every news bureau worldwide. After all the worry and hype, nothing happened. Not even a price scanner in Kmart failed (a testament to the engineers and programmers that solved the issue in advance). We grumbled about it spoiling our own plans and went home. With “nothing happening” other than tearful wailing from Bill McKibben, subsidized anger from Joe Romm, self immolation for the cause by Gleick, pronouncements of certainty by the sabbaticalized Michael Mann, and failed predictions from scientist turned rap sheet holder Jim Hansen, CAGW seems to be a lot like Y2K.
Simon Carr of the Independent, after hearing a lecture by MIT professor Dr. Richard Lindzen, thinks maybe global warming and Y2K have something in common. He writes:
At a public meeting in the Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by “settled science”. They’re not new, but some of them were new to me.
Over the last 150 years CO2 (or its equivalents) has doubled. This has been accompanied by a rise in temperature of seven or eight tenths of a degree centigrade.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes half this increase to human activity.
Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”
Full story here
h/t to WUWT reader Ian Forrest
Bishop Hill has a copy of Dr. Lindzen’s slide show for his talk here
(Update: some people having trouble with the link to Bishop Hill’s – so I’ve made a local copy of Linzden’s talk here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/rsl-houseofcommons-2012.pdf )
Josh Livetooned the talk – have a look at his work here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Slide pdf link is broken.
REFRESH – Alternate link provided – Anthony
Err… the millennium bug was not a mistake, at least not in that sense. The reason ‘nothing’ happened is because a lot of people worked to make sure that nothing did happen. What did happen is that the media seized on the story, as they are wont to do, and ran with it. What started out as ‘guys this is a problem we need to do something about it’ was turned into ‘World to end! Film at 11’.
And in actual fact some things did happen, but of course they didn’t make the news.
Mike.
Excellent quote, puts things into perspective.
Lindzen says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”
Mistake? No!
Both have one thing in common – Al Gore …
“Bishop Hill has a copy of Dr. Lindzen’s slide show for his talk here” -> “Page not found”
See: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/RSL-HouseOfCommons-2012.pdf
REPLY: Works for me every time. Must be a residual Y2K bug. I’ve made a copy locally here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/rsl-houseofcommons-2012.pdf
-Anthony
So are they saying that like the Y2K problem, through proper planning, mitigation, and preparation then AGW will be a non issue? I’m not sure I understand the analogy
Well first of all, it wasn’t a bug in the usual sense, such as a programatical error. It was hardware desing limitation “built-in” as the consensus was computers would not be required beyond 10 or 15 years, a few years before year 2000. I like it when consensus is, almost always, wrong. I know people from several countries in Africa and one from Romaina who’s authorities did nothing to “fix” the Y2K “bug”. Still, it was largely the “banks” who were driving it as they needed to ensure payments were correct and on-time (To the banks that is).
Climate change is just the next scare and if Russian scientists are right, we need to be worried about a significant cooling period. Storing plant seeds in an ice vault in Sweden (Or wherever it is) won’t feed people.
I beg to differ. Numerous companies made investments into their own infra-structure to prevent problems, in many cases replacing lots of equipment which when tested, proved it would have auto shutdown. For example, Windows NT 3.0 had several issues with the date change.
Even though CO2 has proven itself to be nothing more than plant food and debate fodder, it is easy to draw out doomsday possibilities for those who only look for doomsday scenarios, regardless of the reason
This is an excellent comparison. Surprised, but delighted, that it was made in the “Indi”.
It’s important to call out the mass media when they create mass hysteria over trivialities and a false understanding of science.
I am not sure if it is my system, but the link to the slides at Bishop Hill does not seem to work. Thanks for the great WUWT site and all the effort.
Massive amounts of work were done wrt the millenium bug. Many millions of dollars were pocketed by consultants and experts. 99% of it was a total waste of effort.
I was one of those people writing those reports and checking the code, being just the grunt that actually did the work I didn’t make much out of it, but some people in suits are probably still living on the proceeds.
It’s only my wild guess but I suspect if the cost of y2k preparations was £1 billion, the cost of doing nothing would have been $1 million.
Advice to the UK Independent:
1. Scientist crying catastrophe for 20 years are not to be trusted!
2. Any politicians needing taxes to fix catastrophic anything are not to be trusted!
3. Any scientist who switches from global warming to climate anything are not to be trusted.
4. Any UN body claiming catastrophic anything are not to be trusted.
5. Any UN body claiming any justified world taxation requirements are not to be trusted.
Hey, you UK Independent writers & editors, executives & members of your Board of Directors: do you sense a pattern here? Are you brain dead? WAKE-UP!
@NoAstronomer 8.04 am. You are absolutely right. I was then working with large IT projects in telecomms. and without a lot of hard work by a lot of people some important problems would have arisen, in telecomms. and elsewhere. Yes, there were odd glitches, but none were serious or could not be sorted out quickly. To imply it was a non-event is wrong and a slight on a huge number of IT professionals.
John Arthur
NoAstronomer says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:04 am
I agree that Y2K was a real problem solved by real people. In 1999, I was responsible for making sure that the software that ran various business segments of a 24/7 operation continued to work.
johninreno
The real news here is that it made it into the Independent.
Strange days indeed…
The proper comparison of Y2K mitigation to CO2 Doomerism is this:
“We need to stop time immediately or it’s going to kill the children!”
Gotta love the banner on Watts’ site here as the purest of ironies. Post after post of anti-AGW propaganda and politics.
Sorry fellas, but one way skepticism is not scientific skepticism.
Oh yes, you guys are the good guys!
I’m a bit stunned as to how people can become so disturbingly self-deluded. How perfectly you reflect what you claim are the worst traits of your opponents. Group Think does that.
I know Anthony, You have an answer for that and will not allow the comment. Confirmation.
Y2k is an example where even the purported story is still miss represented 12 years later. I worked at a large electrical generation and distribution Company on y2k remediation. First step was testing and identifying problems of which there were many, enough serious ones to bring down the grid. The problems were fixed through the hard work by great technicians and investment by the company. The media saw y2k come and go and because civilization did not come to an end the conclusion was that the public was
lied to. What a bunch of morons. Y2k was a case where a an identified problem was easily verified through testing, fixes put in place, and the outcome was a non event. Certainly there are NO parallels with AGW!! (other than how moronic the MSM can be)
“Exp says:
February 24, 2012 at 8:37 am”
Are you an Australian ALP supporter?
Ah. Yes. Y2K where contract programmer pay went through the roof.
Gone are the days. The work is still fun though.
There is no parallel between Y2K and cAGW – because the former was a real and potentially serious problem and the latter almost certainly is not. I urge anyone who is dubious to read this: http://qii2.info/y2k.pdf (or at least to read its Executive Summary). Interestingly, for me anyway, it was my responding to an AGW sceptic’s comment that AGW was another empty scare like Y2K (commenting on an article by Dr David Whitehouse in the UK’s New Statesman in December 2007) that got interested in the important, fascinating and, particularly recently, hugely entertaining AGW issue.
Unfortunately, the Y2K/cAGW parallel continues to be drawn: not least – and most unfortunately – by the otherwise heroic Donna Laframboise. It was an article by Donna and a subsequent email exchange that prompted my paper.
I attended Professor Lindzen’s talk in Westminster (and was privileged to have tea with him afterwards): his quiet, undramatic manner is devastatingly effective. And thanks for reminding me of that quotation, pwl. The last five words – “trivially true but essentially meaningless” – sum up AGW perfectly.
So Exp care to explain the errors here? I’m sure you will get a rather robust reply.
Instead of a content free “you don’t understand” how about giving your understanding with supporting evidence. You know. Do some science.
I don’t believe the global worming story.
[perhaps you have more to contribute? . . kbmod]
Y2K hysteria was media-manufactured. It was a real issue for IT staff. I modified hundreds of programs and datasets to fix a database design mistake — beginning seven years before midnight December 31, 1999. Only missed one program and had that fixed in a couple of hours. Clear-headed scientists know any change to an environment presents both benefits and detriments. The issue is dislocation — how much and how fast. That and the parasites trying to gather as much as they can for their own benefit.