Anthony Watts has put a huge amount of work into documenting significant problems with station siting and UHI.
Beyond that are the issues with the data handling and manipulation. USHCN has actually reversed the measured trend since 1920 from cooling to adjusted warming, based on the fact that a few of their co-benefactors in the global warming scam thought it was a good idea.
I come from a different background. I was on the design team of many microprocessors, including the Intel I7, Intel Itanium and IBM Power PC. These designs have billions of transistors, and every one of them has to work perfectly. These companies spend vast resources on flushing every last bug out of these designs.
How did we manage to isolate and remove every bug? The process involved analyzing the design using many different simulation and modeling techniques. A single approach would be inadequate, and would guarantee failure. They hire dozens of people whose sole purpose is to find and flush out problems with the design, using as much creativity and diversity of thought as possible. The designers benefit from the process, because they want their bugs found before the product goes to market.
NASA and NOAA do the exact opposite. They are pushing an agenda, and have developed a single methodology which achieves the results they are looking for. When someone like me comes along and analyzes the data using different approaches, how do they respond?
Everyone else does it our way
And that is exactly the problem. Everyone else is doing their data analysis the same way, using the same assumptions, so they all come up with the same results. I am digging up all sorts of problems with their data and methodology, and they would be wise to listen – if they actually are interested in producing an accurate temperature record.