Why do global warming deniers use the argument "It's like Y2K", when it goes against their position

Question

The thought is that both are or were not real problems.

But that's completely wrong.

Y2K was an enormous problem, which would have created chaos in many computer systems. It took thousands of programmers many thousands of hours to fix it. The estimated cost to fix it was 500 billion dollars.

The only thing was the programmers were not confident they'd found all the bugs and were cautious about saying that nothing much would happen.

But Y2K was a very real problem.

And so is global warming. Proof here (and many other places):

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727

summarized at:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

People who say Y2K wasn't a problem are ignorant of the facts. And so are those who say global warming isn't real.

Tomcat - Could you explain the 1994 thing?

Jam_Till_Impact _

You said "For example, not one person who 100% subscribes to Global Warming has much to say about rising temps on Mars for example. Another example is the Global Cooling that was a trendy fad in the 1970s."

That's flat wrong. Do a search. The following answers have been posted here dozens of times, by a variety of people:

Rising temperatures on Mars are due to giant dust storms unique to Mars, according to the NASA scientists who measured Mars temperatures.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

And, all the planets aren't warming, and we measure the Sun routinely. It's not the cause of recent warming.

The idea of "Global cooling" in the 70s is a myth. It was just a few scientists with no good data and no backing from any major scientific organizations. Much like the "skeptics" of today. Details:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

By the way global warming is not "100%" due to man. Only 80-90%.

Belial - Just a few responses.

The paper I cited considers all the major causes, right down to volcanoes (which are pretty small).

The fact that natural changes have occurred in climate doesn't prove this change is natural. The data says otherwise.

When we were 2-3 degrees warmer in the past coastlines and agricultural areas were very different. That would cause huge expense now. We're not hunter gatherers who can just migrate. And countries wouldn't appreciate mass migrations across their borders.

Bottom line, our modern society is extraordinarily sensitive to climate change. We're already seeing effects of 0.8 degrees (ask a Vermont maple syrup farmer). 2-3 degrees (and we're heading their fast) would be the worst disaster in human history. The resulting economic depression would make the 1930s look like good times, and we could well have wars over land and water.

Answer 1

Because as illustrated by the answerers so far, people who don't understand the Y2K issue also don't understand the science behind global warming.

Mr. Jello claims "For Y2K there were dire predictions from toasters not working."

First of all, how is toasters not working a dire prediction? Secondly, how many toasters have clocks with dates? Sounds to me like someone is trying to rewrite history - a common global warming denier tactic. To be fair, Jello doesn't specify who made these "dire predictions." Treating all sources as equal (i.e. media = scientists) is another global warming denier tactic.

Answer 2

Y2K could have been a real problem, had not calmness prevailed, and the computer scientists analyzed the problem correctly and the technicians took care of the problems Smoothly and competently.

Yet it was blown up all out of proportion by the media, panicing a lot of people, on a problem that was easily solved by cool careful steady work.

Yet the press continued to print hype and publish terror articles until the problem never happened.

Global warming is akin to Y2K in that the press has seized on the worst case scenarios, and blown them out of proportion, and this time we have high visibility scientists and politicians joining the outcry, many making money off promoting the panic, and active suppression of the dissident views and of a calm reasoned approach to a solution.

So on the surface they look a lot alike. Media hype, and demands for instant solutions, on a problem that needs unhampered unlimited research and a calm reasoned approach.

They are different in that the root causes of Global Warming are at least partially natural, not totally man-made. And we do not yet understand the system claimed to be going awry. And there are many many people making huge fortunes off exploiting and contributing to the global panic. And of course, as usual, the poor get poorer as the rich get richer.

I think the reference comparing the two has merit; but they are different in scope and solution.

For one thing, Global Warming in the past has proven to be positive, historically, and cooling negative in impacts on Civilization. Yet this is suppressed and not given to the public.

For another, those who champion Global Warming so vociferously do not actually work themselves to rectify their part, by and large. Seem more interested in terror tactics and making money and fame for themselves. So are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And for another thing, we do not have solid equations linking the many factors to the results, so what we are doing now is more akin to randomly changing out parts of a computer we think might be the problem, rather than calmly analyzing and going to the exact problem as Y2K did.

And rushing in without understanding is very dangerous; can result in a "meltdown" if we change many things hither and yon, and something is not what we thought.

Witness the recent finding of incorrect computer models and input data. Fortunately the errors were not catastrophic. However, the voices of those who saw problems were shut off so the errors lasted a good while! I saw some of the papers that were never considered.

Suppression of dissent is seldom good policy. Especially when dealing with a critical system with many unknowns.

Anyhow, we do need to learn from Y2K about the price of panicing an uneducated populace, but we also need to be aware of our difference in systems, one known and only quite inconvenient if the cure had been wrong, but it was pre-testable before being put into action. And Global Warming where there is still a great deal of dispute on how and even some on why, and if we make an error, and the system crashes, restart is going to be very unlikely!

Answer 3

For once, I agree with Bob. Kind of. Y2K was a very real, very large, and very BIG problem. Everything from the banking industry to the utility industry could have been affected. The fact that they we didn't have problems is a testament to the hard work Bob mentions. I personally worked on the Y2K problem for a company that provides computer systems to a large number of banks. The government of all things did an excellent job in making sure the banking industry's computer systems were corrected.

And here is where Bob and I disagree. The Y2K bug was real. You could test the computer system using different dates and the programs would fail. Every time.

As for climate change and global warming, no one can test the weather. It's almost impossible to start a day over and change one aspect of the climate and see what happens. OK, it is impossible to start a day over. So, global warming alarmists resort to the wonderful computer models along with their built in bias (intentional or otherwise). One model won't agree with itself from one day to the next much less with other models. The models can't go back 100 years and use data from 1900 and "predict" the weather through today. So, if they can't do that, what makes anyone think they can accurately predict the weather or climate 10, 20, 50, or 100 years from now?

The simple fact is that anthropogenic global warming "science" is largely based on opinion and personal belief. It can't be proven like the Y2K bug. It is the latest in a long line of fear mongering from the environmentalists. Remember global cooling, overpopulation, and the ozone hole?

EDIT - dana, how is an understanding of global warming related to Y2K? Other than both being based on computer programs that can be manipulated to give you the answers you want, the 2 sure don't seem to be related...

Answer 4

They do not. Unlike you, they only stick to the topic of climate change and do not refer to stock pages of personal quotes, links to assumptions of data/computer models stated without proof, and unexplained computer models. They stick to the facts and have some understanding of how Earth's climate has changed through the ages (we are talking the last 650 million years) . They are scientists and engineers that work to solve problems associated with pollution.

So, let us stick to the topic, Bob. You claim that climate change is 80-90% anthropogenic, you continue to quote the IPCC report which states that over the last 80 years, there has been an anthropogenic climate change of +.8 degrees C. And, you continue to discredit any climate change induced by variations in solar flux, biomass (plants & animals), volcanic activity, albedo, water vapor, ocean currents, asteroid/comet strikes, Milankovitch cycles, feedback loops, etc. You also seem concerned *only* about the last 80 years of temperature data, because of high levels of CO2. You refuse to talk about temperature models, equations, and data.

How is it that the Vostok ice core temperature data clearly exhibits warm ages and ice ages over the last 750,000 years? Prior to that, Antarctica and all the penguins did not exist because it was too warm. The temperature changes in prehuman times went up to +4 and down to -10 degrees C! Greenland is only 110,000 years old..in other words...it was too warm there for ice prior to that. Note the word prehuman. Temperatures, in either a warm age, transition age, or an ice age, usually range within +/- 4 degrees C. 500,000 years ago, the English Channel was washed out by a glacier that melted and released a 4 week long flood of water. Sea levels have changed within a range of +/- 200 feet. So, how is it that climate change is 80-90% anthropogenic throughout the last 650 million years, when it turns out that mankind has been farming for only the last 8000 years, burning coal for only 2000 years, and burning oil for the last 150 years? Why is the data in the IPCC report, .8 degree C change over 80 years such an important change as opposed to all the other changes that have occurred?

Answer 5

Because they'll use anything at all even if it means losing any credibility they may have had.

With all this talk of Y2K, cooling in the 70's, famine in the 80's etc it makes you wonder if some skeptics realise we're older than 7 years, and can actaully remember for ourselves what happened prior to 2000. It makes as much sense as saying "remember the Martian invasion of 1990 or the day the sun didn't come up back in '85."

Answer 6

I tend to agree with you, Y2K was potentially a real problem that humand has caused / and could choose to rectify if they wished.

Global warming has virtually nothing to do with humans - and if we ceased ALL production of CO2 immediately we would have SIGNIFICANTLY less than a 1% impact on the atmosphere.

More relevant is that a cow produces methane - which is supposed to be more damaging than co2 - each cow does more damage than a badly tuned 4X4 vehicle.

Co2 is the CONSEQUENCE of global warming - NOT the cause of it. This worls has been both hotter AND colder in the past. No matter how "green" everyone becomes, we are in a period of time when the climate is warming. This may last 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years.

It will not matter one jot what humans do though.

When the temperature cools, the oceans absorb VAST amounts of CO2, when the climate warms, the oceans RELEASE Co2 - in such HUUUUUGE volumes that is makes mankinds puny contributions with engines and so on look laughable.

Scientsts will keep talking about global warming and how we can reduce it for exactly how long they get siumple and cheap funding when they add "This research has global warming implications" on the bottom of their grant request forms.

Y2K WAS potnetially a problem, Global warming MAY cause problems - but not ones that we can do anything about - other than use it as an excuse to stop third world countries generating power with fossil fuels - and to allow governments to charge us "carbon tax" .

Sadly, most people will only listen to what the tabloid newspapers say - and governments are not renowned for being the most honest folks under the sun either.

Mark

Answer 7

I have always wondered what are the reasons that people who 100% subscribe to Global Warming disregard all science that points to something else happening. For example, not one person who 100% subscribes to Global Warming has much to say about rising temps on Mars for example. Another example is the Global Cooling that was a trendy fad in the 1970s.

What I really hate is that the Global Warming prophets are unwilling to accept any kind of lighter stance from those who do not buy into it.

I am a conservative Republican. I don't buy into Global Warming. I simply don't. However, that doesn't mean that I want to create as much pollution as possible. That doesn't mean that I don't want to use less energy. That doesn't mean that I don't want things that use less oil. That doesn't mean that I don't want new sources of energy. It doesn't mean that I hate planet Earth.

I doubt you will find many people who don't buy into Global Warming say, "No, I want things to go on just as they are. I want crappy gas milage. I want to import way too much oil. I want to have as much pollution as possible. I want this planet's ability to sustain our kind of life hanging by a thread in 100 years." Yet, if you don't buy into Global Warming 100%, then that is what you get grouped into too many times.

I live in Iowa. At one point a few thousand years ago, the apartment building I live in was under a sheet of ice for most of the year. Had our civilization existed at a time during the Ice Age, Global Warming would have been a HUGE issue. What are we doing wrong? What can we do to about it? If things are going as they are, within a few hundred years the Land Bridge between Alaska and Siberia will be under hundreds of feet of water.

We simply don't have a really good understanding of the planet.

Remember the big Ozone Hole scare? How CFCs were killing our planet? Now, remember how it started to repair itself much faster than had been predicted? Remember how science showed that the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 released more CFCs than had been produced in the history of mankind?

I can only take being told that we are killing the planet and are all going to die before I just ignore it and remember that the dinosaurs managed to die off without SUVs, without hair spray, and without Carbon Credits.

Answer 8

Sorry Bob, but you’re wrong. Y2K *is* relevant to the global warming problem, but not for the reasons that you’re attempting to refute. Therefore you’re using a straw man argument.

The reason Y2K is relevant to the current Global Warming scare-fest is the fact that it was a similar *real* problem, that was blown out of all proportion by the media and a few influential people – such as the UN, who said this of Y2K…

“History offers no example of a parallel threat on a global, national or even local scale. To “wait and see” invites disaster. Only the long term threats of global warming, oxygen loss, exhaustion of other basic resources in the oceans and continents as well as the eventual possibility of an earth-asteroid collision demand worldwide action on a similar scale. A worldwide strategic mobilization… similar to the effort required by World War II must be developed in the weeks ahead.”

So the “threat” of global warming is similar to the “threat” of Y2K, is it? The UN think so. And what happened on January 1st 2000? Basically nothing at all. So should we be worried about global warming if the “threat” is similar? Or should we ignore the UN, because they don’t know what they’re talking about? But hang on, aren’t the IPCC part of the UN? You think we should listen to them, don’t you? So we have to listen to some of the people at the UN, but not all of them? Er? Yeah, okay.

So what else was said about Y2K? The Y2K Personal Survival Guide said this…

“Things are only going to get more confusing… The point of absolute certainty will never come… Nevertheless, I am assuming at least a twelve-month disruption of basic goods and services, including periods of…

No electrical power
No clean water
No telecommunications
Shortages of food, gasoline, clothing, and all retail goods
Widespread bank failures and inaccessibility of funds
Stock market crash
Dramatic drop in real estate values
Economic Depression
Widespread Unemployment
Civil unrest, including protests, riots and general lawlessness”

Blimey! Scary stuff! I’ll remind you that nothing actually happened though.

What else? How about the Y2K Survival Guide and Cookbook…

“Some analysts predict a turbulent time of social upheaval with starvation in some cities, no police force to protect people… and a meltdown of civilization as we know it”

The “meltdown of civilization”? Holy s**t! Except, of course, nothing really happened.

(Most of the above was lifted from Michael Crichton’s speech “Complexity Theory and Environmental Management”. Try reading it… http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html )

Do you not see any similarities with global warming? No? So you’ve never heard of An Inconvenient Truth, then? Remember? That’s the film that says we’re going to see 20 feet of sea level rise by 2100, the worst of many grossly exaggerated or erroneous statements.

*THIS* is why Y2K is relevant. One of the things that makes humans different from animals is that we remember and learn from the past. And past experiences, such as Y2K (and there are others), teach us to be sceptical about scare stories.

So, Y2K: a real issue that was never the catastrophe we were lead to believe it was, that got fixed, without any fuss, and without a “worldwide strategic mobilization” on the scale of World War II.

Global Warming? A real issue, to be sure, but the looming catastrophe we’re being told it is? I think not.

Your last paragraph (at the time of writing) says it all…

“worst disaster in human history”
“resulting economic depression would make the 1930s look like good times”
“wars over land and water”

We’ve heard it all before, and it wasn’t true then either.

“But it’s the science!” I hear you cry.

What, science like the Mann, et al, “Hockey-stick” graph? Or perhaps Hansen’s oh-so-accurate 1988 predictions that I demolished in a question a few days ago (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsnaXgA5ZRZt6X2rPr60moggBgx.;_ylv=3?qid=20070909173304AALMqMw&show=7#profile-info-7f7fad4dad3ac93317fb1101235512b2aa ), or the current computer model predictions that are completely flawed (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf ) or maybe Hansen’s testimony of a few months ago that was not science, just his own biased opinion (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/HansenTestimonyCritique.pdf ).

If that’s the kind of “science” that is being used to “prove” global warming is going to be a catastrophe, I think we’re pretty safe to remain sceptical.


Oh, just a quick final comment on 5_for_fighting’s answer. He said…

“The government of all things did an excellent job in making sure the banking industry's computer systems were corrected.”

You really think so? You really believe that, if the government hadn’t have done such “an excellent job”, the banking industry would have simply done nothing? Of course they wouldn’t – to have done so would have been to commit financial suicide! No, the banks fixed the problem themselves, because they knew that not fixing it meant that they might as well have turned off the lights and gone home.

I worked in I.T. at the time, for one of the biggest merchant banks in the world (UBS Warburg) and we had the problem fixed long before Y2K. There was no panic, no concern; it was an issue that needed fixing and we fixed it. As did everyone else. We weren’t worried on new year’s eve; I was down the end of the road watching the fireworks at the Millennium Dome come midnight, so sure was I that there would be no problem. But that’s not what the public were lead to believe, was it? The U.K. government even set up an Emergency Response office for that night. The only calls they received were from the press, making sure they were really there.

As ever with global warming (as with Y2K in the past) - don't believe the hype.

Answer 9

I agree Y2K could have been a huge problem ,and even if the ploar caps don't melt , who would wan't to take a chance.Why are people so dismissive about the polar caps melting , if it gets hot enough they will melt?So why not spend more money on scientific research. There is nothing to fear from the truth.

Answer 10

Some "Global warming deniers" are idiots. Most of the people taking part in this argument happen to be.

Most of the arguments presented by Mr. Gore are misrepresentations of the truth, or are outright lies. I know, because I was impressed by the movie, and was trying to find references to back it up. Turns out that the more I looked, the bigger fraud Gore was perpetrating.

Bush opposes stem cell research based on faith, not science. Gore promotes that idea that climate change is due to human activity, and again, it's based on faith, not science.

Sure wish there was a little more thought going into this issue, and less jingo-istic shouting of bumper stickers.