OK Ludwig the pretend scientists, lets have at it. Your link to NCDC shows this:

Q. Do many U.S. stations have poor siting by being placed inappropriately close to trees, buildings, parking lots, etc.?
A. Yes. The National Weather Service has station siting criteria, but they were not always followed. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network, with excellent siting and redundant sensors.

Right off the back the NCDC agrees with Watt on the siting problems. Doh! They also agree their quality control guidelines are not followed. They clearly do not control the world wide network. In addition, Watt has shown NCDC tends to pick really bad sensors. For example, there are 2 on Oahu, HI. One is at the airport and is clearly biased by the local environment (tarmac, jet engines, etc). The second is a few miles away. They always differ with the airport one be much higher. Does NCDC drop the airport one? No. Does NCDC use the other one, No. Watt right, you wrong.

Your text to link…

NCDC here admits there is only one study that has attempted to measure the quality of the US network. Moreover it only sampled a small number, and was performed by NOAA (who clearly have a conflict of interest here). Also note the subtle but clear not on peer reviewed studies.

As I said, NCDC is quite clear on what they do. When a satellite measure a site and it is different they change the satellite data. Even though that SAME SATELLITE measured other sites and agreed with them - no change.

Come on dude - can do better than that? And videos are science.