I can't imagine any other science where a professional scientist would openly mock the work of his colleagues in this manner, as if it's all a competition between good and evil -- especially by a group that has seen its own share of epic failures over the years.
Surely this result, which I doubt is anything new to modelers, says more work on modeling and understanding climate is needed. (Remember, that is the whole point of all this: understanding climate and its changes.)
But then there is this: the linear trend for the entirety of the two datasets on middle tropospheric temperatures in the tropics is
RSS MT 20S-20N: 0.090 ± 0.028 °C/decade
UAH MT 20S-20N: 0.030 ± 0.028 °C/decade
That's right -- their trends differ by a factor of three, with UAH by far the lowest -- a fact which is neatly hidden away in Spencer's graph by taking their average. (Added 6/8: How can Spencer claim "...the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends)...."?)
Most people would consider that a failure of its own, and quite a bad one.
Maybe the people doing the measurements should be paying attention to getting their own piece of the science right, and they ought not be giving everyone else cause to wonder if perhaps their own data is extremely inaccurate or biased low.