Friday
Oct142011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Speaking of books
Oct 14, 2011 Climate: other Donna Laframboise's new book about the IPCC is out. It looks like this is going to be a good one:
Blooming brilliant. Devastating" - Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist
"...shines a hard light on the rotten heart of the IPCC" - Richard Tol, Professor of the Economics of Climate Change and convening lead author of the IPCC
"...you need to read this book. Its implications are far-reaching and the need to begin acting on them is urgent." - Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics, University of Guelph
Reader Comments (186)
@Leopard in the basement
I have no implied counter thesis ... that the IPCC had actually been overladen with denier input . You misunderstand me. I am merely pointing out that Donna's work is hopelessly one-sided. She can draw links between IPCC scientists and any shade of green groups, but I could draw links between other IPCC scientists and right wing think tanks. Unlike Donna I'm not asserting that the IPCC has any particular character, the "right answer" probably lies somewhere in between and the whole picture needs to be looked at to draw an informed conclusion.
Hengist
Then why speak? Otherwise, you self define you have nothing to say. ;)
Oh. Hang on. sounds like a counter thesis is needed to justify that statement.
Or do you think just habitually pronouncing certainty is something you can get away with with no consequences?
Are you in a bunker with Ghadaffi as we speak? ;)
Hengist, I hear your "I found a link between..." like a hear a puppy dog trying to impress to some. It may work in a lazy way for many minds, but to me I ask you show you have some Bassett hound gravity, that you show the IPCC actually has an an even balance that defies Laframboises's powerful thesis otherwise ;)
You are not going in that direction.
Why?
Why don't you care?
Hengist,
I keep thinking as I read Donna's book, is this really all of them, or even most of them? She clearly demolishes the various characterizations of the IPCC by its apparently ignorant or if not ignorant, biased advocates that it is the product of the best and brightest. To show that, she needs only a bit more than a few examples. And she does show them.
We do know that some indisputably competent people were and are contributors. Are their efforts muddied by the editing and possible prejudices of the lesser lights? Seems demonstrated, at least in part.
Hen gist, as ever you've missed the point, but I'll put it to you again. Ms Framboise (wouldn't any sane human being yearn for a name like that.), in her book shows the ties between authors of the IPCC report and NGOs and other AGW supporting organization. She doesn't deal with any ties between the reviewers whether for, or against, the theory because as she points out in her book, which I'll hazard a guess that you, as usual, haven't one of the criticism's she's made of the process is that the reviewers comments count for diddly squat. If you know of an author who is associated with a realist lobbying group she hasn't exposed then let us know. If you similarly know of any reviewer she's exposed as connected to green lobbying groups let us know that too.
It would be really nice if the wannabe trolls on this thread could address the science, just once.
@geronimo
"If you know of an author who is associated with a realist lobbying group she hasn't exposed then let us know."
Happy to help
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Skeptical_and_Industrial_IPCC_Contributors
I just bought the PDF. The links in the PDF are all in blue, which is fine, but they are also all underlined. The underlining makes the PDF annoying to read. Could we have a version of the PDF just has links in blue (like links are here at Bishop Hill)?
Hengst McStone,
Thanks for another "this is the best I can do" entry.
Pielke Jr, Curry, Zorita, Von Storch, Tol??? Linked with lobbying groups????
Log this moment that Hengoid conspicuously commented to something else (I think he made up) and has not responded to my immediate searching questions. Is it a matter of his ego?
When not singing he is rather flat, no?
I guess he thinks I am a real challenge to his ego, in the DSM as Narcissistic? ;)
I am well into Donna Laframboise's new book and expect a leisurely weekend with it. I concur with it so far.
Already at this blog I see what could have been expected to be the reaction to her book. One strategy shown by critics of her book is to imply that whatever she says about the IPCC (& fellow travelers) also applies to her and her sources/friends. Kind of childish and unsophisticated strategy by her critics, but I have come to expect that.
One does expect that an expose is never welcomed by the exposed. : )
John
Response to Theo Goodwin.
You have misunderstood what I said. It is not my thoughts that the IPCC is set up on the premise that anthropogenic climate exists - it is clealy described in its constitution. I refer you to the IPCC web site.
The IPCC will not entertain arguments about whether climate change exists or not because to do so would be contrary to its reason for existing. The IPCC cannot employ people with heretical views because 'the science is settled'. Its not science but that's what our politicians set up. They don't do science just politics.
Hen gist: You have pointed me to a conspiracy site that lists scientists who don't believe 100% in the AGW theory .who have contributed mostly as authors and reviewers all of them distinguished scientists with blameless records of pursuing the science. Richard Lindzen in the pay of Big Oil? The problem is with you conspiracy theory types is that you cannot believe that thousands of scientists could disagree, even slightly, with the lunatic theory that the earth is sensitive enough in temperature changes to destroy itself if it goes over 3C higher than today's temperatures, so you move to "they're evil' and must be muzzled position. You then assume that others, are going to be convinced by the conspiracy sites you read.
Now be a good boy/girl and go and read chapter 4 of Donna's book where she gives examples of four "scientists" who were made authors, or lead authors for the IPCC many years before their acquisitions of their doctorates. All connected with NGOs
@leopard Sorry I neglected to answer your question I couldnt actually see a relevant coherent question from you.
@John M Not all of those names are linked with lobbying groups, but ESRI is certainly a think tank with an agenda, it doesnt disclose corporate (ie main) funding so why should we trust it to be impartial ?
@geronimo
Did I say "Richard Lindzen in the pay of Big Oil"? No I didnt but you did, where did you get that from then? Did you make it up or are you just trying to construct a straw man argument ?
Don't apologise.
You have nothing to say.
I get it ;)
I like it. Did Ian Plimer start a fashion, with his ' How to get expelled from School' title ?
This 'The Delinquent Teenager ...' title seems like another in a similar vein.
They're certainly catchy. Can we look forward to a rush of such titles now ?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/how-to-get-expelled-from-school-ian-plimers-new-book/
Can it be got in audio format, for Kindle or iPhone, or whatever ?
It's so fascinating & I just dont have much time for reading, so it would be lovely to have someone read it to me .
Joe V,
Kindle machines will read it to you but the experience depends on the book, I once spent some time away from a book leaving it on play it was Moshers/Fullers CRU tapes. I found that was the worst example of the Kindle voice reading experience ever! 'cos 90% of the time it read web address's in literal form ;)
Hengist
You continue to confuse the issue — probably deliberately.
The IPCC's remit is to investigate the scientific basis and risk of anthropogenic climate change. The influence of WWF (let's just stick to the one example to keep it simple) is not conducive to this task being carried out thoroughly or objectively.
WWF is an activist group which is interested in climate change/global warming only to the extent that it can be used to pursue its own ends. To this end it has succeeded in recruiting a large number of scientists who are active within the processes of the IPCC. There is a clear conflict of interest and the possibility for a considerable degree of corruption of the science.
The affiliations of others are of no relevance. In what way does McKittrick's or Tol's or Lindzen's connection with "right wing think tanks" (another mythic bogeyman like the now worn out "Big Oil") have any bearing? And since we are well aware of their connections since sourcewatch insists on telling us about them there is no reason for Donna to tell us about them as well, is there? The WWF connection, on the other hand, which sourcewatch does not tell us about — why would that be, Hengist; please tell! — is now out in the open and their pronouncements on global warming can be put into the proper context.
Hengist McStone,
Please tell me how many of the people on your link to SourceWatch actually are "associated with a realist lobbying group", which was the context to which you were responding.
I just want to compare the number to the total number of contributers/reviewers associated with the four IPCC reports.
BTW, using SourceWatch as a resource for arguing bias is probably not a good idea.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/climate-gossip-on-backchannels/
And double BTW, you continue to think there's some value in your tit-for-tat argumentative tactic to defend the IPCC. Again, "there no worse than the skeptics" is not going to go very far in furthering the "let's do something about climate change" agenda.
Re: Hengist
> ESRI is certainly a think tank with an agenda, it doesnt disclose corporate (ie main) funding..
From its 2010 financial statement hidden in plain sight on its website:
7,906,111 Commissioned research
943,260 Research Grants
81,723 Members subscriptions
26,593 Sale of publication
38,698 Miscellaneous income
106,289 Rental Income.
9,102,674 is the total income of which only 38,698 (0.42%) could be corporate donations.
I am in the middle of Dona Laframboise’s new book. It is making my weekend.
In her book Donna has a comprehensive perspective regarding the non-transparent handling by IPCC’s Susan Solomon (AR4’s Chair of WG1) of a request by expert reviewer Steven McIntrye for SI on two as-of-then-unpublished papers being considered for inclusion in AR4.
-----------------------
My hat off to Donna L; her view looks like appropriately skeptical professional journalism to me. Donna titled that chapter “Clear as Mud” and I can see why she chose Susan Solomon’s muddiness as an IPCC leader as a key element of the chapter.
John
PS - this comment was also posted at WUWT's thread on Donna's new book.
@John M
By realist you mean skeptic or advocate positioned as skeptic dont you?
So are you telling me that you can refute it simply by pointing to the fact it's on SourceWatch? Every claim is cited on that resource, its all facts that those individuals contributed to IPCC reports. Im not defending the IPCC, you misrepresent me. I am merely pointing out that Donna isnt giving us the full picture, there is something being systematically hidden in her account ie that the IPCC also takes contribs from a much wider ambit than Donna is suggesting.
@Mike Jackson
You ask in what way does certain individuals connections with right wing think tanks have any bearing. I am staggered by the naivete of your question.. The scientifc quest is supposed to be dispassionate Right wing think tanks have an agenda , they are not dispassionate.
And exactly what is their agenda, Hengist?
In relation to the IPCC, that is. I know what WWF's agenda is; I don't know what "agenda" think tanks pursue that is relevant to climate.
[snip] One could say that to omit to respond is principled in certain circumstances, if there was clear previous provocation, but to avoid to respond in such a [ snip] way like Hengist does here with me makes me sure there is no way back to honest respect for him.
[NO. Please moderate your responses]
.
I've been looking forward to Donna's book for some time, and intend to download and read it when I get a moment.
Re Y2K, I'm in general agreement with Robin Guenier on this, having been drafted in to do many hours of user testing that time (what a marathon that was), and also having experienced my share of IT snafus over the years. If nothing had been done to fix it, I suspect that events would have unfolded in a similar way to the recent BlackBerry inconvenience (originating in Slough, spreading out to affect millions across the globe) except that it would probably have been multiple events like this occurring simultaneously and affecting one another with an unfortunate sort of synergy. I'm thinking of the number of people involved in big IT projects, then the amount of time they tend to take (usually underestimated), then thinking of them having to be done all exactly at the same time, with the clock ticking, and customers/managers/politicians/the public requiring instant results. I'm of the opinion that it would have been... not exactly a picnic, put it like that.
@Mike Jackson Obviously you've only been paying attention to one side of the argument.
Hengist McStone
Since ZED is on holiday, I thank you for your staggering comments. If there is any passion here, it appears to come from you.
Thanks for that Leopard. Andrew Montford once tweeted that I don't know what ad hom is. He was wrong . I can point to your post there as clearly ad hom. Since there's no moderation and you lot aren't prepared to engage in responsible civil debate either there's no point in continuing with this. Goodnight all.
Alex Cull
Mmmmm 'kay, is the latest blackberry snafu that big a deal? Lets examine
Was it is bad as the situation that happened at the New years day of 1969-1970? Or the change of day from February 12-13 1996?
Get over it! Be rational (I demand) There really can't be hind sight importance attributed to one day like Dec 31 1999. It wasn't actually different to the day to day mega - billion - giga - goddamn amazing-ness of day to day human existence we have today!
I feel I am on the wrong board and my lack of belief in super human foresight and the ability of humans to be perpetually on the knife edge of fear. All I can say is I'm glad that we really don't depend on you. The quiet people who do stuff get and get on with normality must be all on the Terry and June boards ;)
IIRC, Tol helped Greenpeace with its 1994 Climate report. As per Hengist, that makes Tol doubly dangerous - linked to Greenpeace and right-wing think tanks. Or it cancels his evil, I guess.
I repeat
I also seem to remember asking you why sourcewatch is happy to tell us about sceptics' links to its favourirte bogeymen but doesn't tell us about things like WWF's "infiltration" into the IPCC.So why don't you stop flannelling and answer the question(s). Either would do; both would be preferable, but don't strain yourself.
Hengist McStone
Oct 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM
I asked you a specific question. You have pointed to a link that listed several dozen individuals in response to a question about "realists" and lobbyists. It doesn't matter how I define anything. You posted the link. I presume you meant it to mean something other than just a list of names, and you've already said that not everyone on the list is linked to lobbying groups.
I ask you again, who on that list were you thinking about when you linked it in the context of "associated with a realist lobbying group"?
My point with regard to the reliability of SourceWatch is simply to point out the obvious.
@ Hengist
The point DlaF is making relates to the alarmist habit of claiming that because the IPCC sayts something it must be true. I'm paraphrasing, but not very grossly and I'm sure you're familiar with the argument.
The technical name for this argument is the argument from authority, whereby one asserts that because so-and-so is an authority, something they say is true. It is akin to the doctrine of papal infallibility.
What DlaF is demonstrating is that the IPCC is not an authority at all. It claims to be, but is not. It is staffed by non-experts lacking significant qualifications, and by political activists, notably from the WWF, FotE and Greenpeace.
Any claim that it is authoritative thus fails twice over - once because argument from authority is spurious anyway and again because it isn't even an authority.
This differs from an ad hominem attack because it goes precisely to the argument made for the IPCC. An ad hominem would be to say that William Connolley has a stupid pony tail and thus nothing he says should be believed. Thyat's not what's being said. What's being said is that he and others of his ilk are not scientists but activists and that their work is politically tainted and unreliable, not the neutral source of wisdom often claimed.
It does not follow that Ross McKitrick can be dismissed in the same way because he's a fellow at wherever. The strength of MacIntyre and McKitrick's arguments comes not from who they are. Nobody says we should all believe McIntyre because he's an engineer. What people say is that we should believe him because of what he reasons, what he says and the transparent way in which he concludes what he does.
When you understand this point then you may be better able to engage with Donna's argument.
@Jonathan jones "many of the professionals are not getting on with calmly assessing the problem and working out how best to tackle it, but are instead running around screaming about "death trains" and the end of the world as we know it, while simultaneously accusing anybody who asks to actually see their data of being "deniers"."
the first quote comes not from 'many professionals', but solely from Jim Hansen. And Hansen's group at GISS have all the code and the data for the GISTEMP record and for their climate models online and downloadable by anyone. So your implication of specific hypocrisy is simply not true. Nor is your more general implication. Did anyone call you a denier because you put in a FOI request for the CRU data?
Why academics like you feel the need to scrape the bottom of the rhetorical barrel in this way is a mystery. One expects it in bloggers of course.
@hengist... hypothetically..
Two corrupt politicians. One in power, one in opposition.
Following your argument, you would criticise an investigative journalist for only exposing the politician with power?
In fact following your argument, authority would never be challenged or over turned.
You will have to do better than that...
Is this thread about Y2K, Donna's book, or how to feed trolls ;-?
Downloaded the PDF and very much enjoying the book, brilliantly done Donna!
Y2K. Lots of interesting discussion. At the time I worked very closely with jolly nice people who made a good living from what seemed a relatively minor problem. It looked like it then and nothing has changed my mind since. But I will read Robin's paper. Right after Donna's fab book.
"or how to feed trolls"
Just like on the telly, everything is about food and cooking, many chefs make a troll look fat.
Tom,
Valid point regarding Hansen who is not only sui generis but as you say, behaves professionally as far as the data is concerned and has a reasonable stance on nuclear power.
I think the fact that sooooo few scientists have rebuked the OUTRAGEOUS behaviour of some scientists regarding handling of data and unprofessional behaviour of Mann, Steig, Trenberth and others is a very sore spots with most skeptics.
And the use of the d word I find tantamount to the use of the n word. I do not feel it is an over- dramatisation. The d word is false, unscientific, inapt, nasty, bigoted and used to censor. Frankly, if someone used that word in my home, they would be asked to apologise and then leave.
Justice4Rinka: The technical name for this argument is the argument from authority, whereby one asserts that because so-and-so is an authority, something they say is true."
Claiming that something is "true" (ie necessarily the case) because an authority says so is not justified.
However, there is a lesser claim to the effect that one is justified in accepting the word of an authority because they have a certain level of expertise on a subject. That doesn't mean that the word of the expert is to be regarded as infallible, just that, all else being equal, the expert is more likely to be correct than the non-expert.
And for practical purposes, this sort of appeal to authority cannot be avoided. In questioning the authority of the IPCC, Donna Laframboise is herself relying on the validity of "real" authority.
Further, in the sample chapter, she describes Freeman Dyson as "one of the world's most eminent physicists". So she clearly feels the need to establish the credentials of the expert she calls to comment on climate matters.
Josh:
I've had a little more time to read the book and, yes, it's brilliantly done. As I said above, it's a remarkable piece of calm, professional, investigative journalism: an invaluable source of evidence to counter repeated claims that the IPCC must be regarded as the ultimate authority on climate change.
Re Y2K: well, she got that wrong and that was an unfortunate aberration - I'm disappointed that, in that regard, she failed to do a proper investigation. But that's all.
(I look forward to hearing if my paper changes your mind.)
@Leopard, I'm sure most companies, including the one I work for, would have pulled through and survived the muddle and panic, had we done nothing about Y2K, as RIM will survive the recent BlackBerry blackout (albeit having taken a knock to their customer loyalty and, ultimately, their bottom line.) But being reactive would have been messier and more costly, as I think it would probably have involved some sort of expensive third-party support. We did all the fixing and testing in-house and in good time, and it was mostly stuff that we would have to have addressed anyway. I see our work at that time a bit like backing up a server (as opposed to hiring data recovery services after a crash), although a better analogy might be buying and running anti-virus software, which tends to be unglamorous, works quietly in the background and is conspicuous only when it fails.
Re Delinquent Teenager, positive reviews on Amazon so far. It will be interesting to see eventual hostile reviews, for a "stress test", as it were; if this book is as good as I think it's going to be, the negative reviews will be few in number and consistently poor in quality, as in the case of The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Hengist,
How about critiquing the substance of Donna's book instead of than the peripheral attacks on those praising her efforts. The book speaks for itself. Are the IPCC contributers the cream of science or are they third rate naifs selected for their gender, nationality, politics or other criteria. Are the IPCC procedures in practice designed to distill the most rigorous and best of science. Why is the IPCC headed by a former railroad engineer turned clown. Why are egregious errors allowed to stand? Why are legitimate reviewers stonewalled when they attempt a genuine review of the papers comprising the reports? Why do certain controlling IPCC persons allow papers with the correct message to circumvent the cut off date for submission of said papers? Accusing Ross McKitrick and other Laframboise praisers of belonging to some contaminating think tank is merely pissing into the wind. Address the content book itself or say goodnight for keeps on this one.
It seems that the IPCC-camp has redefined the word scientist and uses it to refer to any one who has studied science, top-scientiest are people who have plans for post-graduate studies, world-class top-scientist are people who have actually started their PhD-work. What is really disturbing is the possibility that the well-known pal review of AGW-faithful climate sciencepapers might also apply to the PhDs meaning that there might be quite many PhDs awarded on questionable evaluation standards. Luckily, it seems that in the IPCC-camp ideology your brain starts to suffer from the unprecented CO2-levels and should be replaced by the next generations of scientists.
As someone who was technical lead on banking/payment system implementations for major consultant companies during the whole of 1990's, the Y2K problem was overstated.
(In the financial systems themselves most of the systems handled dates correctly. Why? Because any financial system has to handle forward value dates.)
1. This was the time of Consultant Companies. The late 1990's was the age of the Super-Consultant company - this was the age of Management Consultancy. And it was driven by the BIG SIX Accountancy companies (Deloittes, KPMG, Ernst and Young, Andersons, Coopers, Price Waterhouse.) They all ran large (100,000+ employees) worldwide consultancy practices. They were all in a vanity race for domination of the market.
Companies called in their accountants/auditors to assess the Y2K risk. And miraculously such firms found work for their consultancy companies. Strange that?
The senior partners of the BIG SIX were part of the Washington/Square Mile/Freemason/Mansion House set. These people had direct access to the highest levels of government. If the media needed a talking head, they went to the BIG SIX.
2. This was time of the all encompassing enterprise (ERP) system: Oracle Financials, SAP. These systems aggressively marketed the Y2k problem. Often in partnership with 1.
3. This is was the time of the MBA These people can out with their nice shiny MBA's and went out in the world. They promoted use of Management Consultants and systems like Enterprise Systems.
There are parallels to AGW.
1. These are the green lobbyists, people with an interest in breaking a mature market, and staring a new market curve. Providing the human resources to manage the change that they are creating.
2. These are those with a product to sell.
3. These are the green evangelists.
I read the book yesterday in only a few hours - it's a very smooth read and joins up all the dots extremely well. Trolls are already here, but I doubt they have actually read the book, which doesn't make empty accusations. Everything is meticulously referenced, with web links where appropriate - and the sources are stored using WebCitation, meaning that they won't disappear if those embarrassed by them get busy deleting the originals.
For those complaining about the British price, remember that VAT is included at 20% because exemption doesn't apply to digital books, only paper ones.
For those not possessing a Kindle reader, neither do I; I use free, downloaded PC software. The links in the Kindle version are in red and underlined, but not in URL format - rather as descriptive terms. I found they didn't distract. Do yourself a favour and download the software; you can also store in your library PDF books if you like, and read them in situ.
Jiminy Cricket:
You say "the Y2K problem was overstated". But was it overstated by the Bank of England? For example, it warned (as late as February 1998) that the problem
And by the Governor (Eddie George - not noted for overstatement)? He added:
Was it overstated by the Bank for International Settlements? It warned (in September 1997) that,
@Robin... my post actually responds to everything you wrote (clue for AGW: re Eddie George replace with Cameron, re the BIS replace with the EU). And as someone who had to deal with international payments systems, ACTUAL risk management was a daily part of the job.
It was a gravy train of huge proportions that built up its own momentum. The "set in his ways, never going to change, protector of his intellectual territory" cobol contract programmer could mention Y2K to their boss and be guaranteed an extended contract.
I am not saying there was no risk. But risk was manufactured to a heightened level - a new market was created and everyone could take a cut.
Just the same as AGW.
@Shub Oct 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Bingo! And, amazingly enough, even Pachauri was sufficiently perceptive/honest (for a briefly refreshing change) to acknowledge this in an interview published AC [After Climategate]:
Source: Science 29 January 2010
How "scientific" is that?!
And let us not forget Pachauri's unsurprising and unscientific "vision" for AR5, which includes:
And how "scientific" is that?!
In my totally unbiased opinion (notwithstanding my acknowledged contributions to her research), Donna's The Delinquent Teenager does a superb job of exposing (inter alia) the nature of the IPCC ... with the result that no one (well, no one who actually reads the book) could fail to notice that the primacy of the IPCC's advocacy and campaigning focus is, well, worse than we thought.
Jiminy:
"A gravy train of hugh proportions ... risk was manufactured to a heightened level". Hmm - there's perhaps a tiny element of truth in that, but no more.
The cost to the average FTSE 100 company was around £60 million - spread over three years, that (as I'm sure you know) was a small percentage of these companies' IT budgets. And, as well as fixing Y2K, the exercise brought important benefits: e.g. productivity gains as more efficient systems were brought on line, a sharpening up of disaster recovery and continuity planning (now standard business practice), a better understanding of interrelationships with third party businesses and a better understanding of our dependency on the smooth running of IT systems.
In contrast, not fixing Y2K could be very expensive. For example, a small German bank that had adopted a "windowing" solution to Y2K experienced a relatively minor failure in 2010 (the "Y2.01K problem") - the fix cost £270 million. That's about the same as was spent by the average UK clearing bank in avoiding problems altogether.
Quite unlike CAGW.
@Robin... I was going to qualify "huge" was in relation to my world... but then again GBP 1 Billion between 4 banks, and GBP 6 Billion between 100 companies. Not exactly a tiny market is it? A market that did not exist a few years before. And that was the just the top layer financial in the UK. I also doubt it is close to the true figure.
I am sorry but you sound like a typical IT Salesman for large systems (and I have met many, had a drink with quite a few.) They knew the Y2K problem was a foot in the door. Create that figurative bead of sweat of on the CIO's/IT Manager's forehead. Senior Management (for once - see my first post) understood something of the issue. When the IT Head made his pitch he was accepted. When the IT Head instructed their staff, no one was going to say "actually I do not think it is a big problem."
What is did was totally disrupt the IT budgeting process. It significantly affected the market.
An example? Try employing an SAP "expert" in the late 1990's. People who had basically just learnt to log on to SAP with a 5 day course, where being offered ridiculous daily rates.
There is the law of diminishing returns. Project Management is an art. You get to certain size of project and money is just p*ssed away. Look at any government project of the last 20 years. Plus these projects disrupt the business people (the customer) doing their jobs.
And that brings me to one very important point which you are missing. This was an IT driven market. Not a customer driven market. That is always the worst type. IT driven projects, as opposed to those driven by the business, are always wasteful.
I would accept that there were benefits for Y2K. Just like that there were benefits to the Apollo missions. Doesn't mean if that budget had been spent in other ways there would not have been benefits.
The market curve for Y2K was the same as any. Yes it is different than AGW because its period was short. But the the mechanisms used are very similar. However, this is longer term game where the rewards are considerably greater.
(re your example problem, rest assured problems happen all the time it is just not in a Bank's interest to publicise them. I had to crisis manage a few. Shit happens.)