LowSlowT2

Y2K was about money. If nothing had been done, much of the world would've been fine as many sectors had gone to PC server based systems by that time anyway. Mostly mainframe-based servers were going to be affected because they were running antiquated software mostly coded in COBOL which wasn't set up to deal with two-digit dates. You're talking about the early adopters of computer technology - financial sector - who could've afforded to fix it themselves, but instead found a way to have someone else pick up the tab.

Like anything, follow the money...just another way for the gov't to hand out cash.

rickair7777

??? Unless government systems were involved, I don't recall the US government paying to fix anything. They did do an awareness program to make sure everyone got the word.

Servers and operating systems were not the problem, those were easily fixed (for the most part) with a routine software update. It was the applications which ran on those servers, especially older, custom applications using older languages.

Many of those apps were very large-scale systems, and nobody was going to just throw them out and replace them with a MS shrink-wrap product...MS doesn't make stuff like that

My company actually looked at shifting our old, in-house back-office system to SAP during that time frame...they did a year-long analysis and then made a proposal: I kid you not, One Billion Dollars (yes with a "B") to implement initially (the company grossed about 10 Billion/year). We just laughed and said thanks but no thanks. A 100 billion/year company could probably get an ROI on that, but not us...so we just fixed our old-skool crap.

Adlerdriver

Ah yes.... Those who don't fall into the approved group-think of the inconvenient truth crowd are paid hacks. As long as you can get enough "scientists" to come to a consensus (never mind whether they can back it up with actual science), we must all believe and save the planet.

I didn't realize belief in the theory of evolution was the litmus test for who can produce a factual scientific study of global climate and human effect on it (or lack thereof, actually). Personally, I'd be more likely to listen to a scientist who believes the universe, our solar system, the global system of life/reproduction and the miracle of human existence on earth was a result of God (or an intelligent being if you prefer) and not just dumb luck.

PM me next time you buy some carbon credits so I can make sure I have cabbage and beans for supper that night - just to even things out.

FDXLAG

Moving the goal posts. N266 wants to credit the government with saving us from Y2K and you say anyone could have done it.

N2264J

I tell you what. I'll put the equivalent of 400 parts per million of arsenic in your glass
of water and you'd drink it, right?

Because hey! - it's such a small quantity it can't possibly hurt anything.

.

FDXLAG

I wonder how many parts co2 are in a glass of beer?

N2264J

Did you read the "peer reviewed" paper Taylor referred to?

At no point in the Forbes article did Taylor say the sample group all worked for the petroleum industry. In fact, he implied the survey was of the larger scientific community:

"It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific
consensus."

That makes James Taylor a hack and Forbes a pro-business rag. Read the comment section and try to find one statement that doesn't slam Taylor for malpractice.

.