Climate change looks like being the greatest hoax of the 21st century!
November 4 2009
The cult back then comprised computer experts.
They predicted disaster.
Planes would fall from the skies.
People would be caught in halting elevators.
Chaos would descend on anything that relied on a computer, from financial markets to utilities. Governments duly prepared for disaster with the BBC reporting that global preparations for the millennium bug were estimated to have cost more than $US300 billion.
All for nought.
Nothing happened.
It was, as James Taranto wrote in The Wall Street Journal, the hoax of the century.
Maurice Newman, who was chairman of the federal government's Y2K committee told The Australian last week that "in pressing the urgency for compliance, the committee members relied heavily on confirmatory bias. Most of this came from so-called experts who had much to gain from creating a sense of alarm. The consequence of widespread inaction was claimed to result in chaos and systemic failure. As there was no alternative authoritative voice, this became perceived wisdom and was certainly believed by the committee. As such the Y2K phenomenon took on a life of its own."
Deja vu?
Preparing for the deluge of rising sea levels, we were treated to footage last week from parliamentary question time starring Julia Gillard and her gumboots.
Appropriately she was followed on ABC1 by Bananas in Pyjamas.
Could man-made climate change turn out to be the greatest hoax of the present century?
Certainly, ordinary people are beginning to ask questions.
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>> Climate change looks like being the greatest hoax of the 21st century!
> And both issues are completely unrelated.
They are both massive hoaxes. That's related enough for me!
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>>> Y2K was the greatest hoax of the 20th century.
>>> Climate change looks like being the greatest hoax of the 21st century! >> And both issues are completely unrelated.
> They are both massive hoaxes. > That's related enough for me!
> Warmest Regards
> Bon z0
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists > worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct > from natural variation." > Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
Climate = the atmosphere around you Y2K = that computer in front of you
Therefore unrelated.
Got the clue now, you knucklehead, pinball colon geek?
> Climate = the atmosphere around you > Y2K = that computer in front of you
> Therefore unrelated.
> Got the clue now, you knucklehead, pinball colon geek?
In fact the parallels between the two issues are very similar.
The public at large is not very well trained to make an informed decision as to whether this computer problem was going to be a big problem or a little problem. This is because most citizens in society do not have a lot of computer training and expertise.
This means consumers had to rely on the testimony of experts. THIS IS EXACTLY the SAME situation with regards to global warming.
The other interesting parallel is that governments tend to always overreact. So, be it the bird flu, or y2K or now the sky is falling a global warming, is that governments have a history of completely over blowing these things. They react complete out of proportion to what the real problem is!
Remember it was the same governments in the 1970's that was worried about a coming ICE AGE And how our ability to grow food to feed the people was going to be affected.
The other interesting parallels to Y2K is we had a lot of people doing book tours and making money from selling books on the upcoming new computer crisis. Then throw in the computer consulting industry in which billions was being spent on Y2k, and in fact I hard pressed to NOT think of a BETTER parallel of the global warming scam compared to that of Y2k.
In fact was most important both cases, is there has to be some truth and at least some legitimacy to the science and problem at hand.
So in a case of the global warming scam, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and does have some effect on trapping heat in the atmosphere. Of course the problem is that the amount of co2 from man's is simply a non issue an is not a problem to worry about.
In the case of the Y2k, there WAS some computers and SOME software that did need to be dealt with and fixed. There WAS some software that was going to fail. However exactly like the co2 scare + scam, the problem lies in that the amount of computer failures was going to be quite small and was not going to create some big huge crisis.
So in fact if you're an intelligent person, and you can make an informed decision about global warming, then you should be able to use your brain and make an intelligent informed observation that parallels between these two issues are MOST CERTAINLY REVELENT to this discussion.
In fact if you too mentally challenged to see the parallels between these two issues, then it tells me you are incapable of analyzing anything intelligent with regards to global warming anyway.
If you can figure the above out, then how can you figure out anything about global warming then?
People getting inoculated against Polio is another example.
Why did they bother inoculating people with Polio vaccine when nobody gets it anymore?
I don't understand why they don't allow weapons on passenger jets either, there hasn't been an incident since around 2001, so it proves that there was never a need to restrict them in the first place.
It doesn't make sense. Smart people like you and me know that.
Green Turtle wrote: > "BDR529" <jake.> wrote in message > news:4af5869e$0$83235$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... >> Climate = the atmosphere around you >> Y2K = that computer in front of you
>> Therefore unrelated.
>> Got the clue now, you knucklehead, pinball colon geek?
> In fact the parallels between the two issues are very similar.
> The public at large is not very well trained to make an informed decision as > to whether this computer problem was going to be a big problem or a little > problem. This is because most citizens in society do not have a lot of > computer training and expertise.
> This means consumers had to rely on the testimony of experts. THIS IS > EXACTLY the SAME situation with regards to global warming.
> The other interesting parallel is that governments tend to always overreact. > So, be it the bird flu, or y2K or now the sky is falling a global warming, > is that governments have a history of completely over blowing these things. > They react complete out of proportion to what the real problem is!
> Remember it was the same governments in the 1970's that was worried about a > coming ICE AGE And how our ability to grow food to feed the people was going > to be affected.
> The other interesting parallels to Y2K is we had a lot of people doing book > tours and making money from selling books on the upcoming new computer > crisis. Then throw in the computer consulting industry in which billions was > being spent on Y2k, and in fact I hard pressed to NOT think of a BETTER > parallel of the global warming scam compared to that of Y2k.
> In fact was most important both cases, is there has to be some truth and at > least some legitimacy to the science and problem at hand.
> So in a case of the global warming scam, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, > and does have some effect on trapping heat in the atmosphere. Of course the > problem is that the amount of co2 from man's is simply a non issue an is not > a problem to worry about.
> In the case of the Y2k, there WAS some computers and SOME software that did > need to be dealt with and fixed. There WAS some software that was going to > fail. However exactly like the co2 scare + scam, the problem lies in that > the amount of computer failures was going to be quite small and was not > going to create some big huge crisis.
> So in fact if you're an intelligent person, and you can make an informed > decision about global warming, then you should be able to use your brain and > make an intelligent informed observation that parallels between these two > issues are MOST CERTAINLY REVELENT to this discussion.
> In fact if you too mentally challenged to see the parallels between these > two issues, then it tells me you are incapable of analyzing anything > intelligent with regards to global warming anyway.
> If you can figure the above out, then how can you figure out anything about > global warming then?
> Super Turtle
Too many words on a worthless discussion, that's what it is.
>"Climate = the atmosphere around you >Y2K = that computer in front of you >Therefore unrelated. >Got the clue now, you knucklehead, pinball colon geek? >Q"
Reply:
He's drawing an analogy. Something that you guys do all the time in this group with unrelated things in order to support your AGW story.
How come it's alright for you guys to draw analogies, but it's not all right for us to do the same ? ? ?
Oh yeah.... I forgot,...... you leftist AGW Alarmists believe in "do as I say..... not as I do."
>"That's true. Science is nothing but a big scam. >People getting inoculated against Polio is another example. >Why did they bother inoculating people with Polio vaccine when nobody >gets it anymore? >I don't understand why they don't allow weapons on passenger jets >either, there hasn't been an incident since around 2001, so it proves >that there was never a need to restrict them in the first place. >It doesn't make sense. Smart people like you and me know that."
Reply:
Hey.. you have to stop that Rexy. You're not supposed to use analogies.
That's what your buddy "Q" from the Q Continuum says.
>"Climate = the atmosphere around you
>Y2K = that computer in front of you >Therefore unrelated. >Got the clue now, you knucklehead, pinball colon geek? >Q "
Or is it alright for you guys to use analogies, but not okay for us to do the same?
>"What do you know? You're a socialist Canadian who gets socialist health care. >I hear that Canada would be like Afghanistan if you didn't have oil. >Canada is so radically left that you aren't even allowed to pack a gun on a trip >to the grocery store or a bar."
Reply:
Point one... Just 'cause he's a Canadian doesn't mean he's a socialist. I'm a Canadian and I'm a libertarian who believes in individual freedom and personal responsibility for all law- abiding citizens, and having a givernment controlled with free elections, short terms of office, and checks and balances to prevent government from getting too big.
Point two..we can own guns up here in Canada if we are law- abiding citizens. We just have to take firearms safety courses and do a lot of paperwork. For hunting with our rifles and shotguns, we take hunter saftety courses, and write an exam in order to get our hunting licence, and register them. But it looks like registering of long arms might get dropped and done away with now. The government figures it's been a waste of money. As long as you have a weapons permit, and sign the store papers when you buy your rifle, they already know you have firearms anyways. We get a lot of Americans who come up here to hunt. I think that most of them would know about that. For our handguns, we take the pistol courses, register our handguns, and join a gun club. Of course for a handgun, they check you out more and dig into your background. But yes, you can even own a nice stainless-steel Sturm Ruger .45, or a nice 9mm Glock up here in Canada. You just have to go about it legally and follow the rules like with anything else.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:07:25 -0800 (PST), Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>John typed: >>"What do you know? You're a socialist Canadian who gets socialist health care. >>I hear that Canada would be like Afghanistan if you didn't have oil. >>Canada is so radically left that you aren't even allowed to pack a gun on a trip >>to the grocery store or a bar."
> Reply:
> Point one... Just 'cause he's a Canadian >doesn't >mean he's a socialist. I'm a Canadian and I'm a libertarian who >believes in individual freedom and personal responsibility for all >law- >abiding citizens, and having a givernment
Now there's an idea, a "Givernment", no more Takernment, things are no longer dependent on such things as "currency" or even man's limitations in production.
Just put $20,000 a month in everybody's bank account, and watch the economy hum.
>controlled with free >elections, short terms of office, and checks and balances to prevent >government from getting too big.
> Point two..we can own guns up here in Canada if we are law- >abiding >citizens. We just have to take firearms safety courses and do a lot >of >paperwork. > For hunting with our rifles and shotguns, we take hunter saftety >courses, and write an exam in order to get our hunting licence, and >register them. But it looks like registering of long arms might get >dropped and done away with now. The government figures it's been a >waste of money. As long as you have a weapons permit, and sign the >store papers when you buy your rifle, they already know you have >firearms anyways. > We get a lot of Americans who come up here to hunt. I think that >most of them would know about that. > For our handguns, we take the pistol courses, register our >handguns, and join a gun club. Of course for a handgun, they check >you >out more and dig into your background. But yes, you can even own a >nice stainless-steel Sturm Ruger .45, or a nice 9mm Glock up here in >Canada. You just have to go about it legally and follow the rules >like with anything else.
>" Now there's an idea, a "Givernment", no more >Takernment, things are no longer dependent on >such things as "currency" or even man's limitations >in production. > Just put $20,000 a month in everybody's >bank account, and watch the economy hum. "
Reply: Ha, ha, ha, you caught my typo... I should have checked my typing before hitting "send".
bo n o wrote: > Y2K was the greatest hoax of the 20th century.
> Climate change looks like being the greatest hoax of the 21st century!
> November 4 2009
> The cult back then comprised computer experts.
> They predicted disaster.
> Planes would fall from the skies.
> People would be caught in halting elevators.
> Chaos would descend on anything that relied on a computer, from financial > markets to utilities. Governments duly prepared for disaster with the BBC > reporting that global preparations for the millennium bug were estimated to > have cost more than $US300 billion.
> All for nought.
> Nothing happened.
Not entirely correct. Although nothing much happened at midnight December 31st 1999, a few months later, at the end of February 2000, a lot of computer programs started going wrong. It was the first time ever that the third rule of leap year calculation - the year is divisible by 400 - kicked into operation in a computerized world, and a lot of programs started getting the date wrong, starting with February 29th. Apart from simply printing the wrong date, this meant that programs were paying transactions on the wrong day, and calculating the number of days between two dates incorrectly. People were unable to book tickets for February 29th. Bank transactions failed due to apparently incorrect dates.
> It was, as James Taranto wrote in The Wall Street Journal, the hoax of the > century.
> Maurice Newman, who was chairman of the federal government's Y2K committee > told The Australian last week that "in pressing the urgency for compliance, > the committee members relied heavily on confirmatory bias. Most of this came > from so-called experts who had much to gain from creating a sense of alarm. > The consequence of widespread inaction was claimed to result in chaos and > systemic failure. As there was no alternative authoritative voice, this > became perceived wisdom and was certainly believed by the committee. As such > the Y2K phenomenon took on a life of its own."
> Deja vu?
> Preparing for the deluge of rising sea levels, we were treated to footage > last week from parliamentary question time starring Julia Gillard and her > gumboots.
> Appropriately she was followed on ABC1 by Bananas in Pyjamas.
> Could man-made climate change turn out to be the greatest hoax of the > present century?
> Certainly, ordinary people are beginning to ask questions.
> "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists > worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct > from natural variation."
> Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
> Not entirely correct. Although nothing much happened at midnight December > 31st 1999, a few months later, at the end of February 2000, a lot of > computer programs started going wrong.
Actually, I pointed out in December 1999 that this whole issue was not going to be a problem at all. For sure, there was some problems. I had been doing some y2k work for some companies at the time. The MAIN reason why there was NOT going to be a big problem was that failures of software had been occurring over time. This "over time" issue was CRITICAL to this whole debate.
So, some accounting systems that rolled their year ends over in Feb 1999 for example had now "end" dates and year endings thus finishing in Jan or feb 2000. Thus, that system had a problem/failure in it software, but the company running that software had almost a year to fix that problem.
Some mortgage systems had failed 10, or even 20 years earlier. So, many systems were experience failures due to date problems OVER A PERIOD of time. I did not do a lot of remediation software work, but I did re-mediate a few older systems and had to go quite deep into their software systems to fix the code.
> It was the first time ever that the third rule of leap year calculation - > the year is divisible by 400 - kicked into operation in a computerized > world, and a lot of programs started getting the date wrong, starting with > February 29th.
This true, however, for any software that working with dates from 1901 onwards it turns out that the 400 year problem was GOOD in the sense that all you have check is if the year divides by 4, and if it does then it is a leap year. so, in fact, 2000/4 = 500. Turns out that simple divide by 4 calculation DOES tell me that 2000 is a leap year.
however, note how I said 1901 or later. It turns out that 1900, or 1800 is divisible by 4, but they not leap years...
So, in a funny way, that 400 year rule actually made things easy for some software. We just divide by 4 and not worry about any other rule!
In a strange way, some software that REALLY tried to do this 400 year rule correctly is software that had the problem!
So, no question y2k was not a crock or scam. However, the governments and people doing the book tour scene did overblown it by HUGE AMOUNT. The effects where going to be minor at the stroke of midnight. And, the "big" embedded processor scare was simply not true at all.
The SAME goes for AGW. I started out worried. Then looked farther, and then after more study, it clear it not a problem.
Man's co2 is not a problem and the IPCC is over estimating its effects by a factor of 600%. This 600% calculation is explained in the video I posted here recent:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:07:25 -0800 (PST), Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> > wrote:
>>John typed: >>>"What do you know? You're a socialist Canadian who gets socialist >>>health care. I hear that Canada would be like Afghanistan if you didn't >>>have oil. Canada is so radically left that you aren't even allowed to >>>pack a gun on a trip to the grocery store or a bar."
>> Reply:
>> Point one... Just 'cause he's a Canadian >>doesn't >>mean he's a socialist. I'm a Canadian and I'm a libertarian who believes >>in individual freedom and personal responsibility for all law- >>abiding citizens, and having a givernment
> Now there's an idea, a "Givernment", no more > Takernment, things are no longer dependent on such things as "currency" > or even man's limitations in production.
> Just put $20,000 a month in everybody's > bank account, and watch the economy hum.
What would you buy? Why would anyone produce anything?
<bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote: >On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:13:54 -0400, I M @ good guy wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:07:25 -0800 (PST), Catoni <caton...@sympatico.ca> >> wrote:
>>>John typed: >>>>"What do you know? You're a socialist Canadian who gets socialist >>>>health care. I hear that Canada would be like Afghanistan if you didn't >>>>have oil. Canada is so radically left that you aren't even allowed to >>>>pack a gun on a trip to the grocery store or a bar."
>>> Reply:
>>> Point one... Just 'cause he's a Canadian >>>doesn't >>>mean he's a socialist. I'm a Canadian and I'm a libertarian who believes >>>in individual freedom and personal responsibility for all law- >>>abiding citizens, and having a givernment
>> Now there's an idea, a "Givernment", no more >> Takernment, things are no longer dependent on such things as "currency" >> or even man's limitations in production.
>> Just put $20,000 a month in everybody's >> bank account, and watch the economy hum.
>What would you buy? Why would anyone produce anything?
Some people like to be productive.
What drives rich people?
Perhaps all the would be inventors would be so productive that progress in technology would change the world, maybe even giving alternate energy the shot in the arm it needs, not enough is being done now.
>> Not entirely correct. Although nothing much happened at midnight December >> 31st 1999, a few months later, at the end of February 2000, a lot of >> computer programs started going wrong.
> Actually, I pointed out in December 1999 that this whole issue was not going > to > be a problem at all. For sure, there was some problems. I had been doing > some > y2k work for some companies at the time. The MAIN reason why there was NOT > going to be a big problem was that failures of software had been occurring > over > time. This "over time" issue was CRITICAL to this whole debate.
> So, some accounting systems that rolled their year ends over in Feb 1999 for > example had now "end" dates and year endings thus finishing in Jan or feb > 2000. > Thus, that system had a problem/failure in it software, but the company > running > that software had almost a year to fix that problem.
> Some mortgage systems had failed 10, or even 20 years earlier. So, many > systems > were experience failures due to date problems OVER A PERIOD of time. I did > not > do a lot of remediation software work, but I did re-mediate a few older > systems > and had to go quite deep into their software systems to fix the code.
>> It was the first time ever that the third rule of leap year calculation - >> the year is divisible by 400 - kicked into operation in a computerized >> world, and a lot of programs started getting the date wrong, starting with >> February 29th.
> This true, however, for any software that working with dates from 1901 > onwards it turns out that the 400 year problem was GOOD in the sense that > all you have check is if the year divides by 4, and if it does then it is a > leap year. so, in fact, 2000/4 = 500. Turns out that simple divide by 4 > calculation DOES tell me that 2000 is a leap year.
> however, note how I said 1901 or later. It turns out that 1900, or 1800 is > divisible by 4, but they not leap years...
> So, in a funny way, that 400 year rule actually made things easy for some > software. We just divide by 4 and not worry about any other rule!
> In a strange way, some software that REALLY tried to do this 400 year rule > correctly is software that had the problem!
> So, no question y2k was not a crock or scam. However, the governments and > people doing the book tour scene did overblown it by HUGE AMOUNT. The > effects where going to be minor at the stroke of midnight. And, the "big" > embedded processor scare was simply not true at all.
> The SAME goes for AGW. I started out worried. Then looked farther, and then > after more study, it clear it not a problem.
> Man's co2 is not a problem and the IPCC is over estimating its effects by a > factor of 600%. This 600% calculation is explained in the video I posted > here recent:
Dear Albert.. Wow, a Lord Monckton video. I am SO underwhelmed. To quote Wiki... "his credentials as a commentator on climate change have been questioned by some commentators. James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded self-promotion."[10] The Daily Telegraph has described him as "a former economic adviser".[4]... The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized Monckton's arguments, labelling them "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[12]"
Anyway, back to Super Bonzo's post. What do you think of his logic?
1. y2k was a hoax. 2. y2k cost a lot of money 3. AGW control costs a lot of money. 4. Therefore, AGW is a hoax.
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:51:22 +0100, Tom P <werot...@freent.dd> wrote: >Green Turtle wrote: >> "Tom P" <werot...@freent.dd> wrote in message >> news:7lmhgsF3dl4coU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Not entirely correct. Although nothing much happened at midnight December >>> 31st 1999, a few months later, at the end of February 2000, a lot of >>> computer programs started going wrong.
>> Actually, I pointed out in December 1999 that this whole issue was not going >> to >> be a problem at all. For sure, there was some problems. I had been doing >> some >> y2k work for some companies at the time. The MAIN reason why there was NOT >> going to be a big problem was that failures of software had been occurring >> over >> time. This "over time" issue was CRITICAL to this whole debate.
>> So, some accounting systems that rolled their year ends over in Feb 1999 for >> example had now "end" dates and year endings thus finishing in Jan or feb >> 2000. >> Thus, that system had a problem/failure in it software, but the company >> running >> that software had almost a year to fix that problem.
>> Some mortgage systems had failed 10, or even 20 years earlier. So, many >> systems >> were experience failures due to date problems OVER A PERIOD of time. I did >> not >> do a lot of remediation software work, but I did re-mediate a few older >> systems >> and had to go quite deep into their software systems to fix the code.
>>> It was the first time ever that the third rule of leap year calculation - >>> the year is divisible by 400 - kicked into operation in a computerized >>> world, and a lot of programs started getting the date wrong, starting with >>> February 29th.
>> This true, however, for any software that working with dates from 1901 >> onwards it turns out that the 400 year problem was GOOD in the sense that >> all you have check is if the year divides by 4, and if it does then it is a >> leap year. so, in fact, 2000/4 = 500. Turns out that simple divide by 4 >> calculation DOES tell me that 2000 is a leap year.
>> however, note how I said 1901 or later. It turns out that 1900, or 1800 is >> divisible by 4, but they not leap years...
>> So, in a funny way, that 400 year rule actually made things easy for some >> software. We just divide by 4 and not worry about any other rule!
>> In a strange way, some software that REALLY tried to do this 400 year rule >> correctly is software that had the problem!
>> So, no question y2k was not a crock or scam. However, the governments and >> people doing the book tour scene did overblown it by HUGE AMOUNT. The >> effects where going to be minor at the stroke of midnight. And, the "big" >> embedded processor scare was simply not true at all.
>> The SAME goes for AGW. I started out worried. Then looked farther, and then >> after more study, it clear it not a problem.
>> Man's co2 is not a problem and the IPCC is over estimating its effects by a >> factor of 600%. This 600% calculation is explained in the video I posted >> here recent:
>Dear Albert.. >Wow, a Lord Monckton video. I am SO underwhelmed. > To quote Wiki... "his credentials as a commentator on climate change >have been questioned by some commentators. James Hoggan and Richard >Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny >Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", >and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded >self-promotion."[10] The Daily Telegraph has described him as "a former >economic adviser".[4]... >The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized >Monckton's arguments, labelling them "cherry-picking, downright >misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[12]"
>Anyway, back to Super Bonzo's post. What do you think of his logic?
>1. y2k was a hoax. >2. y2k cost a lot of money >3. AGW control costs a lot of money. >4. Therefore, AGW is a hoax.
Not "therefore", the word is "also", only bigger, and this one is the fantasy of programmers, Y2K was the fault of hardware and firmware makers.
> >> Not entirely correct. Although nothing much happened at midnight December > >> 31st 1999, a few months later, at the end of February 2000, a lot of > >> computer programs started going wrong.
> > Actually, I pointed out in December 1999 that this whole issue was not going > > to > > be a problem at all. For sure, there was some problems. I had been doing > > some > > y2k work for some companies at the time. The MAIN reason why there was NOT > > going to be a big problem was that failures of software had been occurring > > over > > time. This "over time" issue was CRITICAL to this whole debate.
> > So, some accounting systems that rolled their year ends over in Feb 1999 for > > example had now "end" dates and year endings thus finishing in Jan or feb > > 2000. > > Thus, that system had a problem/failure in it software, but the company > > running > > that software had almost a year to fix that problem.
> > Some mortgage systems had failed 10, or even 20 years earlier. So, many > > systems > > were experience failures due to date problems OVER A PERIOD of time. I did > > not > > do a lot of remediation software work, but I did re-mediate a few older > > systems > > and had to go quite deep into their software systems to fix the code.
> >> It was the first time ever that the third rule of leap year calculation - > >> the year is divisible by 400 - kicked into operation in a computerized > >> world, and a lot of programs started getting the date wrong, starting with > >> February 29th.
> > This true, however, for any software that working with dates from 1901 > > onwards it turns out that the 400 year problem was GOOD in the sense that > > all you have check is if the year divides by 4, and if it does then it is a > > leap year. so, in fact, 2000/4 = 500. Turns out that simple divide by 4 > > calculation DOES tell me that 2000 is a leap year.
> > however, note how I said 1901 or later. It turns out that 1900, or 1800 is > > divisible by 4, but they not leap years...
> > So, in a funny way, that 400 year rule actually made things easy for some > > software. We just divide by 4 and not worry about any other rule!
> > In a strange way, some software that REALLY tried to do this 400 year rule > > correctly is software that had the problem!
> > So, no question y2k was not a crock or scam. However, the governments and > > people doing the book tour scene did overblown it by HUGE AMOUNT. The > > effects where going to be minor at the stroke of midnight. And, the "big" > > embedded processor scare was simply not true at all.
> > The SAME goes for AGW. I started out worried. Then looked farther, and then > > after more study, it clear it not a problem.
> > Man's co2 is not a problem and the IPCC is over estimating its effects by a > > factor of 600%. This 600% calculation is explained in the video I posted > > here recent:
> Dear Albert.. > Wow, a Lord Monckton video. I am SO underwhelmed. > To quote Wiki... "his credentials as a commentator on climate change > have been questioned by some commentators. James Hoggan and Richard > Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny > Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", > and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded > self-promotion."[10] The Daily Telegraph has described him as "a former > economic adviser".[4]... > The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized > Monckton's arguments, labelling them "cherry-picking, downright > misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[12]"
The fact that three confirmed whackos (Hoggan, littlemore, and Monbiot) present content free disputes with Monckton only adds to his credibility. I notice that none of them, including yourself, is able or willing to address the content that he presents. Did you think nobody would notice this?
>> >>> Not entirely correct. Although nothing much happened at midnight December >> >>> 31st 1999, a few months later, at the end of February 2000, a lot of >> >>> computer programs started going wrong.
>> >> Actually, I pointed out in December 1999 that this whole issue was not going >> >> to >> >> be a problem at all. For sure, there was some problems. I had been doing >> >> some >> >> y2k work for some companies at the time. The MAIN reason why there was NOT >> >> going to be a big problem was that failures of software had been occurring >> >> over >> >> time. This "over time" issue was CRITICAL to this whole debate.
>> >> So, some accounting systems that rolled their year ends over in Feb 1999 for >> >> example had now "end" dates and year endings thus finishing in Jan or feb >> >> 2000. >> >> Thus, that system had a problem/failure in it software, but the company >> >> running >> >> that software had almost a year to fix that problem.
>> >> Some mortgage systems had failed 10, or even 20 years earlier. So, many >> >> systems >> >> were experience failures due to date problems OVER A PERIOD of time. I did >> >> not >> >> do a lot of remediation software work, but I did re-mediate a few older >> >> systems >> >> and had to go quite deep into their software systems to fix the code.
>> >>> It was the first time ever that the third rule of leap year calculation - >> >>> the year is divisible by 400 - kicked into operation in a computerized >> >>> world, and a lot of programs started getting the date wrong, starting with >> >>> February 29th.
>> >> This true, however, for any software that working with dates from 1901 >> >> onwards it turns out that the 400 year problem was GOOD in the sense that >> >> all you have check is if the year divides by 4, and if it does then it is a >> >> leap year. so, in fact, 2000/4 = 500. Turns out that simple divide by 4 >> >> calculation DOES tell me that 2000 is a leap year.
>> >> however, note how I said 1901 or later. It turns out that 1900, or 1800 is >> >> divisible by 4, but they not leap years...
>> >> So, in a funny way, that 400 year rule actually made things easy for some >> >> software. We just divide by 4 and not worry about any other rule!
>> >> In a strange way, some software that REALLY tried to do this 400 year rule >> >> correctly is software that had the problem!
>> >> So, no question y2k was not a crock or scam. However, the governments and >> >> people doing the book tour scene did overblown it by HUGE AMOUNT. The >> >> effects where going to be minor at the stroke of midnight. And, the "big" >> >> embedded processor scare was simply not true at all.
>> >> The SAME goes for AGW. I started out worried. Then looked farther, and then >> >> after more study, it clear it not a problem.
>> >> Man's co2 is not a problem and the IPCC is over estimating its effects by a >> >> factor of 600%. This 600% calculation is explained in the video I posted >> >> here recent:
>> >Dear Albert.. >> >Wow, a Lord Monckton video. I am SO underwhelmed. >> > To quote Wiki... "his credentials as a commentator on climate change >> >have been questioned by some commentators. James Hoggan and Richard >> >Littlemore note in their book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny >> >Global Warming that Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", >> >and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded >> >self-promotion."[10] The Daily Telegraph has described him as "a former >> >economic adviser".[4]... >> >The British writer and environmentalist George Monbiot has criticized >> >Monckton's arguments, labelling them "cherry-picking, downright >> >misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish."[12]"
>> >Anyway, back to Super Bonzo's post. What do you think of his logic?
>> >1. y2k was a hoax. >> >2. y2k cost a lot of money >> >3. AGW control costs a lot of money. >> >4. Therefore, AGW is a hoax.
>> Not "therefore", the word is "also", >> only bigger, and this one is the fantasy of >> programmers, Y2K was the fault of hardware >> and firmware makers.
>And it has been corrected within a few weeks by a minimalist expense.
>Not in 30 years with trillions of dollars and no effect.
But Y2K needed something done, all the climatologists and AGW freaks could retire, and nothing needs to be done.
I suspect CO2 is causing the atmosphere to cool, but there is a lot of self regulating mechanisms that will try to retain a norm.
I don't know of any land "surface" temperatures, yet there is talk about the land and ocean temperature data.
I have a number of computers from the 1980s and 1990s, but I never worried about Y2K, a day one way or the other is not an issue with me,
And I knew 2000 was a leap year.
But W A R N I N G , my computer or XP Pro does not have a 2100, it rolls over to 1980 after 2099!
I will have to get a new computer before then, or maybe run linux.
> >>> Y2K was the greatest hoax of the 20th century.
> >>> Climate change looks like being the greatest hoax of the 21st century! > >> And both issues are completely unrelated.
> > They are both massive hoaxes. > > That's related enough for me!
> > Warmest Regards
> > Bon z0
> > "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps > > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists > > worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct > > from natural variation." > > Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
> Climate = the atmosphere around you > Y2K = that computer in front of you
> Therefore unrelated.
> Got the clue now, you knucklehead, pinball colon geek?
> Q- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
There were some Y2k problems getting computers to read the year 2000; For most computers and programs it didn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. Likewise, with global warming- there are a few problems, but there are also a few benefits. MOST of the problems are chicken little hype- like Y2K. Get the analogy?- A. McIntire
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:47:36 -0800, alanmc95...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Nov 7, 6:39 am, BDR529 <jake.> wrote: >> bo n o wrote: >> > "BDR529" <jake.> wrote in message >> >news:4af57100$0$83246$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl... >> >> bo n o wrote:
>> >>> Y2K was the greatest hoax of the 20th century.
>> >>> Climate change looks like being the greatest hoax of the 21st >> >>> century! >> >> And both issues are completely unrelated.
>> > They are both massive hoaxes. >> > That's related enough for me!
>> > Warmest Regards
>> > Bon z0
>> > "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of >> > perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of >> > thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet >> > been detected that is distinct from natural variation." >> > Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, >> > Townsville
>> Climate = the atmosphere around you >> Y2K = that computer in front of you
>> Therefore unrelated.
>> Got the clue now, you knucklehead, pinball colon geek?
>> Q- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> There were some Y2k problems getting computers to read the year > 2000; For most computers and programs it didn't make a whole hell of a > lot of difference. Likewise, with global warming- there are a few > problems, but there are also a few benefits. MOST of the problems are > chicken little hype- like Y2K. Get the analogy?- A. McIntire
The primary similarity is that they both generated fear by taking advantage of the average person's ignorance of computers, whether keeping track of the century or predicting the climate.
The biggest difference is that Y2K had an obvious due date, but the AGW hoax can be kicked down the road as long as there are suckers to buy into it.
|
