The bet was about the surface temperature records. I've stated it many times. I did the calculation (in my profile) considering a 0.2 degree C per decade trend, and that's the surface trend. I never considered the LT trend(s). (I thought there were three, too, but right now I can only think of UAH and RSS. There was Vinnikov and Grody; maybe that's what I was thinking of.)
One example:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1958442/posts?page=193 (post 154)
and
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1963363/replies?c=85
kidd wanted it to be about the satellite temperature record, too. But that was never how I stated it. I will, of course, be curious as to how the LT temperatures behave. But they might be even more sensitive to a strong El Nino due to increased convection over a broader area of the Pacific; hence, a bigger El Nino like 1998 might have a disproportionate effect on the LT, rather than a more general surface warming. That's just speculation. But it doesn't change the terms of my "bet".
So you think LT measurements from satellites are no good. Ok, explain why you want to use surface records which use one single station next to a plowed runway on the warm antarctic peninsula to represent the whole continent instead of many satellite measurements taken around the continent and extrapolated into the interior. When you are done answering that I have more questions.