Are the skeptics correct that global warming is a hoax?

My education is in statistics and Six Sigma, so when I saw this article, I had to check it out…

Surface Temperature Data Quality Suspect – Casts Doubt on “Global Warming” Hypothesis

Essentially, the article contests that the data being used to justify an increase in temperatures could be lacking. The author, Thomas Pyzdek (a well-respected Six Sigma guru), points to the location of the temperature monitors as a source of error, due to their surrounding conditions.

“The bottom line is that 89% of the sites examined to date are in categories 3, 4, or 5. In other words, they fail to meet established NOAA requirements.”

In Six Sigma, it is critical to make sure (with good solid analysis) that the data you are looking at is valid. This is a VERY common error that people make. More often than not, I usually find a problem with the measurements when I’m working on a project. People naturally assume that the data is valid, therefore we should accept it as is. Since this website is very data-focused, any actual or perceived issues related to data collection and reporting of temperature changes needs to be understood and addressed right away.

This leads me to my original reason for the post. Is global warming real?

At first, I thought it was a hands-down decision from the scientific community that it was real, but the more I’ve opened up my eyes, I can’t discredit the nay-sayers (as evidenced by the article above). If I’ve learned anything over the past few years, it is to never assume or take for granted something, even if it seems right to you, and even if the majority of people think it is right. That alone doesn’t make it true. Science and evidence is what will eventually win out, whether we like the results or not.

So let’s assume that the jury is still out on global warming. Does my website go away? No! When I look at the reasons for why we need to make these changes and take these actions to be more green, the reduction of CO2 is not the only reason.

Even if we can live with CO2 emissions, we still have the following issues to address:

1) Water quality and scarcity
2) Pesticides in our food
3) Dependence on foreign oil
4) Destruction of our lands (for coal, livestock, urban sprawl, etc)
5) Landfill overflow
6) Animal extinction

Just to name a few…

Bottom line: If carbon emissions actually has no impact on global warming, then all we have lost is just the fear factor of potential natural disasters and harmful living conditions in the future. I would expect that this is not the main reason people are going green, instead it is the impact on their local environment and their pocketbooks that will have the biggest impact, and that is not affected by global warming.