You should already know that UAH/RSS do not report surface temp, they report the “lower troposphere” which, if you compare it to radiosonde measurements, corresponds to about 5 km (15 000 ft) height. That is not the earths surface where we live.

Many complain about computer models/adjustments made in climate science and then reference UAH/RSS data as if they prove something is wrong with NASA/GISS et al surface temperatures.

Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They measure 'radiances' in various wavelength bands, from which a surface temperature may be INFERRED using computer models that apply multiple ADJUSTMENTS to non-temperature data.

Why do climate science deniers/conspiracy theorists then accept UAH/RSS outputs being evidence computer analysis of surface temperatures are wrong, fraudulent, and/or proof of a global conspiracy?

imho it's called being ignorant of the basic facts, being affected by belief based confirmation bias and being conned by incompetents, liars & unqualified fools on social media and wanna be "rock star-bloggers".

There are reasons why NASA/GISS et al do not equal UHA/RSS outputs.

Apples and oranges? Yes they are both FRUIT from a TREE - equivalent in some ways and yet not Equal. The proof is in the eating. Both apples and oranges are good for you, so long as you are not so CONFUSED that you ask the Fruiterer for an Apple when what you really wanted was an Orange!

There are "global temperatures" and then there are "global temperatures".
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

The semantics of this leads to both unintentional and intentional confusion among the public.
Refs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Climate Deniers’ Favorite Temperature Dataset Just Confirmed Global Warming
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
https://thinkprogress.org/climate-deniers-favorite-temperature-dataset-just-confirmed-global-warming-838eb198e246

Marohasy's false accusations about the effects and intent of "homogenization" and BOM/Nasa/GISS and everything else are utterly irrelevant and nonsensical to the science. Her opinions and her work has been rejected by her peers and the known facts already.

There are good scientific based (and other) reasons why her "papers" have been rejected. She isn't the first and won't be last to have a paper rejected or revised. It's 100% NORMAL and is not a conspiracy against her.

Jennifer,
Cox was not quoting some study about deniers being more prone to believing in other absurd conspiracy theories. He was saying that Malcolm Roberts was asserting a conspiracy as ridiculous as believing the moon landing was faked or that the moon was indeed made of cheese! You also believe that NASA and the other top 3 world temperature databases have conspiratorially set out to manipulate global temperatures. Why? On what evidence? Because some other celebrity scientists (not climatologists) said so? Would you take chemotherapy advice from your plumber? Seriously Jennifer, I don’t know where to begin describing your own worldview to you. I just hope that one day, you get some help. In the meantime, as for me and my household, we’ll stick with peer-reviewed science which quickly and easily debunks every one of your rather eccentric statements above.

A few short video's that show CO2's heat trapping ability:-
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle heat demonstration only goes for a minute.
(The rest of the video is great, and demonstrates the accuracy of today's climate models).
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

Maze said: “As McElhinney/McAleer said, they aren't evil, just wrong.”

Is that actually yourself when you tried to draw an artificial line between the IPCC Working Group and SPM, and quoted a bunch of cherrypicking the GLOBAL discussion while ignoring the rest of the REGIONAL modelling? ;-)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419&page=14

Cherrypicking isn’t evil if you just copy and quote it from some denialist website because it was convenient. It’s just wrong. It only becomes evil if you knowingly continue to spread such Cherrypicked data once you know the truth. So here’s the REGIONAL quotes so you know the truth, and can avoid spreading error. Whether or not you bother to read it and respond to the truth indicates whether there is something more going on than just being plain wrong. ;-)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18419&page=15

Re: Malcolm Roberts: “The Galileo Gambit and other stories: the three main tactics of climate denial,” Stephen Lewandowsky, DeSmogUK, Aug 14 (from “The Conversation,” Aug 10):

“Conspiracism, the Galileo gambit and the use of sciency-sounding language to mislead are the three principal characteristics of science denial. Whenever one or more of them is present, you can be confident you’re listening to a debate about politics or ideology, not science."

http://www.desmog.uk/2016/08/14/galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-three-main-tactics-climate-denial

https://theconversation.com/the-galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-the-three-main-tactics-of-climate-denial-63719

https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephan-lewandowsky-685

Along with the three tactics of denialism mentioned, one sees at work the archetypal tactic of blaming the victim–the perpetrator blaming the victim. Familiar, isn’t it? By the perpetrator I don’t just mean Malcolm Roberts, but the the entire structure that props him up: coaltails, the “One Nation” party, Jennifer Marohasy/IPA, Sydney Institute, Judith Curry, Religious RW of the LNP, John Howard's "One Religion Is Enough" pleas and more.

http://www.desmogblog.com/malcolm-roberts

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/23802

The Galileo gambit is consistent with the tactic of blaming the victim–if not its quintessence. It preempts the role of victim for the perpetrator. So today’s perpetrators of disinformation get to play the role of victims. It also distorts what the suppression of Galileo was about.

Like today, it was a matter of power, politics and purported religion aligning to suppress scientific findings and common sense. The perpetrator-as-victim (or perpetrator-as-aggrieved-party) is a rampant form of disinformation spin.

Jennifer Marohasy is a powerful timely example of that by including such disinformation/sophistry/spin here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18111

as well as this little quote at the top of each page in this article:

"Richard Horton, the current editor of the medical journal, The Lancet, recently stated that, 'The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.'

... as if it is relevant when it is so clearly not. True Knowledge helps and so does Logic. Readers can Discover some Tricks of the Trade here http://esgs.free.fr/uk/logic.htm and re-reading JMs article and comments with the wisdom of such hindsight

Briefly to Thomas O'Reilly,
You have a number of misconceptions including that for a long time now very many land stations are not eyeballed by someone looking at a glass tube two times a day (hopefully), together with inconsistent methodology and strange treatments (like with the BoM for any given day the maxima data were actually logged from the prior day). Instead, they use electronic devices that record continuously and have calibration algorithms and whatnot and troublingly they have greater sensitivities to spikes. That applies to about 30% of the globe in which there are huge uninhabited and/or 3rd world conditions of poor coverage etcetera.

You may not be aware that over 70% of “surface T” is not near-surface air temperature but is water temperature. For a long time now it too has been measured using electronic sensing including buoys or in ship’s engine cooling intakes. Before that they would dunk a bucket over the side and then eyeball a glass tube in it

Satellite remote sensing provides far better uniform coverage.

Yes, TLT data are not the same as near-surface air temperature or sub-surface water temperature, but you miss the point. Unless atmospheric lapse rates have changed significantly since 1979 the SHAPE of TLT data (Temperature Lower Troposphere) should follow near-surface temperature.

However, both of the independent sources of remote sensing data (having separately developed their own calibration algorithms) show a huge 1997/8 El Nino spike. GISS has disappeared it (see link below) although they happily show the 2015/16 one largely responsible for record 2015 global averages. All three sources show the latter to be plummeting

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979

If you believe that the laws of physics behind ATMOSPHERIC LAPSE RATES have changed since 1997 or there is some other poorly understood disturbing atmospheric influence that I’m unaware of, I’d be very interested if you would advise details

I think the questions you raise regarding the adjustments to these complete data sets are quite reasoanble. In any field, they would require a detailed justification, which I can't find. Can someone direct me to such. I would be happy to be homogenized to 5 feet 11, because that is the average height round here, but alas I'm only 5 feet 9.