Skyfall! Y2K vs Global Warming

Some recent studies are sounding
the alarm about climate change. The authors of these studies are
claiming that hundreds of American cities will be largely uninhabitable
within as little as 20 years! They’re forecasting chronic and
catastrophic flooding in many coastal areas. Should we panic? I think not. Instead, we should do a little analytical
thinking and remember the great scare of Y2K. If you’re over the age of about 35
you’ll remember the big panic that took place in the late 1990s. At that time, computer programmers
became worried about the decades-long practice of not using the first two
years of the date to save digital memory. So, 1998 was simply coded as 98. With the year 2000 quickly approaching
really smart computer people worried that all the machines we depend
on wouldn’t know what to do when 1999 became 2000.
There were all sorts of predictions. The electric grid goes down.
Planes falling out of the sky. Nuclear weapons launching themselves.
And so many other breathless prophesies of chaos, death and woe
of Biblical proportions. This was a big deal. Governments everywhere launched into
action and so did the private sector. A bazillion lines of code were
frantically rewritten in a race against the clock. The United States spent
more than 100 billion dollars and the world spent somewhere
between 500 and 600 billion. Of course, there were laggards.
A lot of nations and companies didn’t get the work done on time. Then, on January 1, 2000 what happened?
Nothing. Well, there were a tiny number of minor problems, but nothing
of any consequence. So what does all of this have to do with
frantic proclamations about climate change? Actually, quite a bit. We’re hearing
the same kind of dire predictions that we heard with Y2K.
The media is fanning the hysteria in the same way, only this time they are
being even more extreme. People who were skeptical of Y2K
and urged a calm analysis of the issue were ridiculed then and so-called
“climate deniers” are mocked today. With all that in mind, let’s consider
just one aspect of the Y2K-Climate Change comparison. With Y2K, we were
dealing with a single factor. It was abbreviated coding on dates.
The issue was created by humans in human manufactured machines.
There was only a single variable and it was well understood. And yet,
virtually all the experts were wrong. Climate change, on the other hand,
is an infinitely more complex issue. There are many large variables that
are not well understood. They include short and long
cycles in solar radiation; cold and warm weather ocean patterns
that last decades, volcanic activity, land use and other human activities.
And that’s just a partial list of the stuff we know about. There’s also the virtual certainty that
there’s another big variable or two that we haven’t even considered. Let me frame this in a way that makes sense. If Y2K is the equivalent of basic math
then climate change theory is advanced calculus. By the way, did the world waste more than a
half trillion dollars fixing what was mostly a non-problem?
Not exactly. It’s generally agreed upon that with
the rapid advancement of computer software a lot of computer systems were in
need of a serious upgrade. Consequently, that work got done
sooner rather than later. The same kind of thing could apply
to infrastructure upgrades in our coastal cities. There are many cities
on American coastlines that have had flooding problems dating back a
century or more. It would seem to be a good idea to spend tax dollars
fortifying those areas against the kind of storm surges that
have been battering the coastlines since long before humans ever
walked the earth. If even a modest amount
of increased flooding happens because of climate change, then all the better. Climate is the most complex thing
humans have ever even tried to understand. That being the case, wouldn’t it be nice
if climate change scientists applied a little Y2K humility before making
catastrophic predictions? And how about the news media?
Would it be too much to ask that they do their jobs a little better,
questioning these hyperbolic studies instead of hyping them even more? And how about reporting with a little
less certainty on the most complex issue ever known to man?
Would that be asking too much? Well, that’s no great mystery. You know the answer to that one.

Comments 38

    Top Obama Official Admits: ‘We Faked Climate Change Data’

    Human-caused Climate Change
    A totally unproven theory that is propped up by junk and fraudulent science. Young people are indoctrinated by the education establishment. Any questioning is stifled if at all possible. As an example:

    Help the Poor Africans! Allow them to have the benefits of abundant, affordable, clean energy from fossil fuels that we have.

    Solar and wind create huge amounts of hazardous environmental junk and don't even produce power worth the cost that goes into them – must rely on major government subsidy

  • Hey nice promoted tweet you got there

  • Go ahead and show your evidence to disprove anthropogenic climate change and how you manage to think you're smarter that the expects in a field of science, and you'll probably win a Nobel prize. We'll be waiting, meanwhile we'll continue to progress. Hell, even the Koch Brothers found out the reality of it when they did their own research.

  • You have no idea what Y2K was, do you? The only people making those claims were people who had no idea how computers work. Much like how you don't know how climate change works.

  • These are two vastly different things, a comparison is really stupid. Also, your channel is really fucking stupid, I you don't understand a single thing you talk about.

  • This comparison is a completely moronic apples to oranges fraud. This video is disgustingly biased. I hope you enjoy your money while it lasts because you've sold out all your fellow humans for short term profits. The people who made and paid for this video are disgusting disingenuous scum.

  • You guys really aren’t that bright for a group with energy in its name

  • lol… this whole video is laughable. Nothing but presumptuous analogies and bizarre comparisons and no evidence or real data to prove your main point or no real attack against the data given by the other side c'mon… you can do better than this… This video is laughable and should be considered as not just misinformation but disinformation.

    Seriously… Your main argument is:
    "climate change won't happen because y2k didn't happen."
    jesus christ… And I know what you're gonna say too. You're gonna say something to the effect of: "I just wanted to show that we can be fooled by the leading scientists of the time." …

    … Then show me an attempt to invalidate the data given by the other side. If they're so wrong.

  • … it's just a part of the fear mongering of the society that has been purposely dumbed down!

  • I understand the thought process but Y2K was a hunch not any signs that were visible. However, climate change has shown tell tale signs that it is real. Maybe scientist are over the top to get people to start doing the things we need to get it under control.

  • MmmmSmegma the dingle berry – no problem. Read: “The Little Ice Age was 1.0 – 1.5 [degree] C cooler than current warm period according to LOD and NAO” abstract. I doubt you could understand the abstract, based on your criticism of this video which was dumbing down information you still couldn’t grasp at the smallest of levels; therefore, you can get a baby food serving size of it in a You Tube Video titled: “ Little Ice Age, Angry Ben, Frack-Quakes S0 News Jun.7.2018 “.

    PS: The term “Climate Change” is a stolen term from the Heartland Institute’s March 2008 “International Conference on Climate Change“ which never subscribed to the Global Warming lies. Following the Heartland Institute’s March 2008 conference, a severe snowy winter storm (October of 2008) hit London that crushed transportation, a first time event. There was a mad scramble by the Global Warming Cabal to alter their persona, which began with a name change from Global Warming to the stolen name of Climate Change. Reminds me of the “Peak Oil” lie, too. It took the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to finally put that lie back into the crazies’ toy box. BP punched through the oil chamber and into the magma chamber of the volcano causing the usual volcanic gas to travel up the pipe to the platform resulting in the explosion that destroyed the platform and killed all those people. A simple study of volcanoes would reveal huge lakes of oil located near and around volcanoes. In other words, to run out of oil you must eliminate volcanoes on the whole of planet Earth. This is next level research from school back in the day when geology was actually taught in, say, seventh grade. I get that you’re part of the heard, I just don’t want dragged into your suicide.

  • This is some retarded shit sponsor from a guy who believes in intelligent design.

  • Clear Energy Alliance, you guys have issues of you think people are going to fall for this stupid @$$ ad.

  • Y2K: Oh no, a minor programming issue that could make 2000 1900! Oh no!

    Climate Change: Oh no! Plenty of evidence supports that the ice caps are smaller than ever in the modern world!

    Edit: The data would overload, and the date would become either 1900 or 19100.

  • Who is paying for these ads?

  • So fucking stupid.

  • Please get some help.

  • These are 2 very different things, bit of a con job trying to compare them. And saying you arrive at these conclusion using analytical thinking is extremely misleading and a clear attempt to manipulate folks into an unrelated topic.

  • You guys need to get your heads checked. The concepts of global warming and climate change have hundreds, if not thousands, of studies that show that they are happening, and faster than you might think. A couple inches over the next ten years doesn't sound like much, but it adds up very, very quickly. Y2K was a baseless, theoretical doomsday.

    Oh, also, can you use language that at least sounds smart? 0:57 "really smart computer people worried that…" and 1:30 "a bazillion lines of code…" don't make you sound particularly smart. You also stated "600 billion" was spent by the world trying to stop Y2K, can you list sources?

    You are also comparing two wholly different scenarios in an attempt to play down the effects of climate change. This is really not much different from propaganda; you ignore the other side, you make baseless claims, and you compare different completely different scenarios to draw "conclusions."

  • Research the equator bulge. The sea level around the equator is 400 feet higher than the sea level at UK. If the magnetic poles switch or a super volcano goes off, that could interrupt the equator bulge sending a 400 foot of water in all directions; swishing back and forth like water in a bathtub. All coastlines will be wiped out and the sea level would rise until the new equator bulge is formed. This is a real scenario that governments knows about but keeps the public focused on ice melting and raising sea levels; to prevent premature Anarchy.

  • this seems like parody

  • Golly gee fossil fuel company's are claiming that climate change is as fantastical as the y2k scare? I guess the sky must be blue today. Interesting how they would benefit greatly in terms of profit if everyone denied it like they want. Disgusting

  • Mark Mathis – I think I see your mistake. You’re approaching the issue of anthropogenic climate change rationally, and assuming that the people who watch this video are also rational. The vast majority of the comments thus far demonstrate otherwise. Anyhow, thanks for providing a voice of reason, even though they’ll try to shout it down.

  • This video is just straight up a lazy 3rd rate half assed attempt at denying a scientific certainty. He literally asked "Should we panic that our cities that boarder on the coastlines could be underwater soon? He literally said no. We shouldn't worry about our cities becoming flooded over time. Read that line over again, and tell me on any plain of existence does that make any sense whatsoever? Remember Y2k? What the F does that have to do with ANYTHING GLOBAL WARMING?

  • Actually many experts predicted y2k would not destroy the world but caused many small problems which it did. The panic was created from media overhype in the problem

  • I didn't know something with energy in its name knows little to nothing about energy

  • Y2K and climate change are nothing alike. Y2K was just a hunch and had no real backing. However, climate change does and with what we understand from our planet and with how many greenhouse gases we are emoting, the rate is predicted.

  • For a group with the name clear energy alliance, you don't really promote it. I don't know why you think that just because we panicked about something close to 30 years ago, that automatically disproves any evidence for climate change. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence for climate change and just by comparing it to an earlier event that wasn't that bad means that all of the evidence is worthless? A child claims to have broke his foot, but actually didn't, it's just sprained and was just over exaggerating. Then he is told by almost every doctor in the world that he will spontaneously combusts in the next week, causing an explosion that will most definitely kill him. Because he wasn't in any harm last time, he isn't in any harm now? The answer is that an argument claiming 'somewhat similar past experiences not being so bad means that nothing will be bad ever again' does not hold up to scrutiny. Please stop making videos and return to the Climate Change Denier cave from which you crawled.

  • Y2K was a bunch of guys in IT freaking out, global warming is a ligitamate threat.

  • People like you are literally going to kill us all

  • Are you funded by the oil industry?

  • drink some fuming nitric acid and then some hydrazine

  • There's a lot of negative comments below about the climate issue is real but, the climate changing the way it does is all being manipulated by the HAARP machine the federal government and whoever else is involved to create this panic and fear about climate change when the climates not changing due to natural causes but the climate is changing due to man controlling weather as well as the elements and poison when they spray that crap in our skies with all the chemtrails. People creating these comments down below must be straight left-wing liberals Democrat that just wants to put down somebody's research. Hell the federal government that's in control as well as the Rothchilds George Soros Bill Gates as well as a few others has had scientists manipulate the truth about our climate for decades and Decades of research and analysis on how the climate has worked in the last 200 to 300 and even more years due to all the findings that they see throughout the globe but as socialist global governments and globalist protesters have no clue of the truth because they are being fed this BS propaganda without doing actual research themselves. The media has been lying about everything since the 30s every since the Democrats radical left socialist politicians as well as the Rothchilds rockafellas that wants media controlled and manipulated and all info going to the American people as well as the world meaning newspapers radio stations TV stations and now they're doing their damnedest to control the internet when truth speakers come out and tell people the truth compared to the propaganda BS that their social medias as well as media's are trying to get people to believe, because like the Rothschilds once said, he who control the people controls the world, just like a typical globalist.

  • You do realize that these are two different things, right?

    The FCC should impose heavy fines to dissuade misinformation, like the crap you peddle on this channel.

  • I'm not even 30 yet and I remember Y2K. Car dealerships were even offering Y2K disks for buying their cars

  • Hey Mark, why don't you ever answer when people ask who pays you and your "Alliance" for these videos?

  • Climate change is a hoax.

  • Y2K did not have expert backing that I can recall. It was histeria started by people that had no grasp of computers as far as I witnessed. Climate change on the other hand is heavily backed by the majority of scientists and by historical data. Sure, we don't know all of the factors playing into it, but we know if we sit around and do nothing then we're going to fast track a lot of problems that are otherwise preventable. Will it be the end of humanity? We don't know. But there definitely has been a historical trend of civilizations dying out because they took more than the ecosystem could sustain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *