Now that's some precision right there

I'm very skeptical about the accuracy of the current climate data Here's reason #18,492:

Steve McIntyre shows us a situation involving two temperature stations in the USHCN network in which government researchers apparently have gone with solution #1. Here is the situation:

He compares the USHCN station at the Grand Canyon (which appears to be a good rural setting) with the Tucson USHCN station I documented here, located in a parking lot in the center of a rapidly growing million person city. Unsurprisingly, the Tucson data shows lots of warming and the Grand Canyon data shows none. So how might you correct Tucson and the Grand Canyon data, assuming they should be seeing about the same amount of warming? Would youaverage them, effectively adjusting the two temperature readings towards each other, or would you assume the Grand Canyon data is cleaner with fewer biases and adjust Tucson only? Is there anyone who would not choose the second option, as with the compasses?

Guess which choice the Fed.Gov scientists made for the USHCN data?

The data quality is simply atrocious. The Computer Code is of unknown quality, because it's almost entirely secret:

The GISS data set, created by the Goddard Center of NASA, takes the USHCN data set and somehow uses nearby stations to correct for anomalous stations. I say somehow, because, incredibly, these government scientists, whose research is funded by taxpayers and is being used to make major policy decisions, refuse to release their algorithms or methodology details publicly. They keep it all secret! Their adjustments are a big black box that none of us are allowed to look into (and remember, these adjustments account for the vast majority of reported warming in the last century). [Emphasis in original]

That's NASA's Goddard Center. You know, public servants. Who won't let us look at their code.

Good grief, I thought that I've been overly harsh to the warming alarmist side lately. They look like they're all a bunch of snake oil salesmen. Filed under the "junk science" tag for obvious reasons.