Statisticians are misled by bad data.

Statistics makes sense provided that the original data is clean. When the original data is dirty, adjusted, and infilled by up to 50%, can one still give credence to statistics, as Andrew Gelman does in this post?

I suggest the chart Andrew leads that post with is junk data. Too dirty, adjusted and infilled to form a record of reality.

1. USA's best land surface data, USCRN, U.S. Climate Reference Network shows no warming since it began operating 13 years ago:
   
2. That satellite record doesn't show dramatic warming either. UAH series is about 0.06ºC/decade over the last 3 decades now that man-made CO2 emissions are greatest. Only about 20% of what warmists think it is!
3. Warmists avoid using data which "hides their warming". Is this is the first time most of you reading have heard of USCRN? Why?, given that it is the most accurate, most scientific, faithful data for land surface temperatures in USA for the past 13½ years.
4. Andrew Gelman's data is "dirty, adjusted, and infilled by up to 50%"
5. Can Andrew Gelman to explain to us how warmist NASA GISS got their chart to disagree so widely with Hansen's from 1999, when both are based on the same data?