As we all know, it was smoke and mirrors. The ONLY thing that went wrong was a file management program began picking up the year as "100" because that was the next year after "99".
This about it. About 1994, applications and OS started coming out that understood that 99 meant 1999 and 00 meant 2000. You can find that setting in a lot of applications these days. They are ready for 2099 if they don't already have four digit year fields.
When I was asked what parts of "our network" needed changing, I said none. Most of the network boxen were nearly 20 years old and had no clock and those that did only used it for logging by appending to a text file and to display on a text terminal screen when you had to change config or reset.
Lol, got 8 hours of double time nurse maiding the system that night. as Tony said, the only problems happened in the database they had because the programmers hadn't done a thorough check of the programs.
The other funny thing was even though they had survived Y2K, the accountants insisted that it all had to be upgraded and a rather high class Ci$co $eller was invite to quote. I had fun writing technical appraisals of the various quotes they were putting forward. Seems the unloved Netcomm boxen had a double speed back plane that pissed over their Cisco based replacement, so they had to go $1$G$b$i$t$ stuff to give better service . Silly buggers didn't need any of it, but I had to write up a proposal to go to HQ in London, which was accepted.
What canned it was they suddenly realised that it actually meant their overdraft would rise by $2M and generate SFA extra income. Got extra karma points with the young systems manager when I correctly predicted that happening.
My problem with "global warming/whatever" is that it is a very complex situation and all the debate has focussed on carbon without saying anything about the other factors like methane(cows, human seweage, etc), water vapour etc.
So when they scream "Climate Change". I just shrug and go So! It is what happens naturally and what the planet has been doing since it coalesced.
I know about the "recent" data but also know that since the 1980s, little environmental research has been funded that wasn't out to find "global warming". <tic> We should do more research (it was a cool job wandering around Barrington tops measuring trees to see if global warming had changed the way a certain species reproduced).</tic>
I distrust the models they run as when 911 shut down airlines flights in the USA, and the average temperatures dropped 2 degrees, it took them ages to realise that it was because the aircraft were not there. Part of the reason for that brown haze over Sydney that Tony mentioned. They then started adjusting models to account for this. Were the "recent" measuring stations also affected by overflight from plane routes? They have assured us it isn't heat island affect from growing cities(quick cull all those).
Anyway, I'm still on wait and see.
