Hmmmmmmm, interesting actually heard about this on the Neil Borts show.
The "Y2K bug" has disasterous consequences after all
By TigerHawk at 8/09/2007 03:59:00 PM
Until today, I thought that we skated through the dreaded "Y2K bug" with no ill effects, and delighted in a huge boom in computer software, hardware and services in the years 1997-1999 to boot (that contributed, no doubt, to the Clinton NASDAQ bubble, but that's another rant altogether).
How wrong I was. It turns out that the Y2K bug was the basis of at least some of the climate change "science" we are told to accept without skepticism.
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. (bold emphasis in the original)
In not entirely unrelated chickengreen news: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."
MORE: Hot Air ("Can we at least get some peer review before we build the ark?") has more links; read this especially.
Permalink/Main
9 Comments:
I've been saying for a while now that all this code was chock full of bugs and design flaws.
By Purple Avenger, at Thu Aug 09, 04:27:00 PM
*hysterical laughter*
By Dawnfire82, at Thu Aug 09, 05:33:00 PM
Earlier today I daid in an email to Maggie's Farm trying to stir up some interest:
At three score and 8 it is nice to learn that the hottest year on record was 5 years before I was born.
Let's see y'all blame global warming on me now.
By Larry, at Thu Aug 09, 06:42:00 PM
Whew, you have me convinced!!! All of thios bullcrap about pollution and greenhouse gases and glacial melt blah blah blah is all alarmist nonsense. Treason even. And seeing that it is all pseudo-science, we cab burn these greenies, liberals, etc at the stake and not worry about the effects of all that smoke, as neither do our allies the Red Chinese. I blame myself for not seeing the light... ;-)
By Christopher Chambers, at Thu Aug 09, 07:09:00 PM
Having grown up in the 70's in Buffalo, NY where the average snow fall was almost 80 inches more per year then the norm (this lasted through the 80's) we were pretty convinced by Newsweek's earlier assertion (in the late 70's) that we were going through a global cooling. At that time most of our cities were thick with smog from all of the pollutants our cars and our factories were pumping out. So the possibility that we were going through some sort of cooling due to man's hand was conceivable. Especially when one could drive through LA on a hot summer day with their windows down and have the whites of thier eyes turn yellow. Fast forward to present day, smog alerts which were a given most days in places like LA and Denver come few and far between because we have done such a good job of managing our carbon output.
So if I am a tad bit skeptical about the most recent conventional wisdom on global warming, its not that I dont believe we can have an impact, its just not nearly as great as we think...
By QuakerCat, at Thu Aug 09, 09:24:00 PM
I've been saying all along that global warming is caused by all that dagblasted jitterbugging.
By jim treacher, at Thu Aug 09, 09:46:00 PM
"Red Chinese"
"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." -- Sichuan proverb, often attributed to Deng Xiaoping.
By DEC, at Thu Aug 09, 11:01:00 PM
Especially when one could drive through LA on a hot summer day with their windows down and have the whites of thier eyes turn yellow.
I literally was wearing a M-17 gas mask whenever I went to LAX in the early 80's.
By Purple Avenger, at Thu Aug 09, 11:30:00 PM
Yes, but is the cat a genuine cat, or just some cheap knock-off clone made in a factory in Yinchuan province, that will have problems that will make it defective?
-David
By Anonymous, at Fri Aug 10, 08:26:00 AM
Linear Mode
