Bad data fueling "global warming" hype?

It certainly seems to be the case at least in part:

A meteorologist performing a comprehensive study of temperature-monitoring stations that provide data about global warming says the official facility at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport is riddled with problems that render it useless to scientists.

But the data collected there is being used nonetheless.

Anthony Watts concludes in his investigation that the station at O'Hare is affected by an urban heat effect that would make temperature readings inaccurate as an indicator of what is actually occurring regionally.

"The community around O'Hare was much smaller during World War II, when the airport was built, than it is now," says Watts. "The area had a significantly less-urban population and lacked the acres of concrete and asphalt that exist there today."

The problems at O'Hare are similar to those found by Watts around the country in his study of temperature stations used by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

As everyone knows, urban surfaces - asphalt, cement/concrete, etc. - are hotter to be around than natural areas (e.g. grassy parks). Additionally, if you've ever been around an air conditioner or central air exhaust, you know the kind of heat they kick out. So why in the world would scientists think it's okay to have temperature-monitoring stations in urban areas?

So Watts decided to take up the challenge himself. After surveying a few randomly chosen temperature stations and being shocked at the shortcomings, he set forth on a plan to survey all 1,221 stations, taking photographs along the way. With the help of volunteers, Watts has systematically surveyed one-third of the official weather stations.

The vast majority of the stations surveyed to date fail to meet the prescribed standards. Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 reflecting proper maintenance and standards and 5 representing facilities that are severely compromised, Watts says 70 percent of those stations surveyed received a 4 or 5 rating, while only 4 percent received a grade of 1.

All of the most egregious violations he has observed in the study would result in artificially higher temperatures being recorded.

Only four percent of 400+ stations meet the standards for placement and yet they are trusted to provide data on supposed "global warming?" Are these people insane or stupid? Either way, they certainly aren't practicing good science. Incredible!