re: #1 Charles

Spencer is routinely publishing in top-ranked journals, and has obviously earned his seat at the climate science table. Science is an ongoing discussion, and attacking someone for religious or political beliefs is simply outside the scope of the science discussion. It is poor form.
Does the head of the National Institute of Health, Dr. Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project fame, have credibility issues because of his faith?

It is clear that the accurate diagnosis of short-term feedbacks – let alone long-term
climate sensitivity — from observations of natural fluctuations in the climate system is far
from a solved problem. As we have seen, the presence of non-feedback, internally
generated radiative forcing confounds the identification of radiative feedback.
Nevertheless, it is hoped that the insights provided here — all explained within the
forcing-feedback paradigm of climate variability – will lead to new and more accurate
methods of feedback and climate sensitivity diagnosis from satellite observations, as well
as better metrics for the testing the climate sensitivity of coupled climate models.

This is from Spencer’s peer-reviewed paper (thanks for the link freetoken). If it was as objectionable as some on here imply, the reviewers and editors would not have let it be published.

I believe Spencer’s paper delivers a new tool to improve climate modeling that is the driving force behind a billion dollar global industry.

Finally, humankind should hope that people like Spencer are correct in their assertation that CO2 caused warming isn’t as dire as currently predicted - that would give more time for greener technologies to mature and less death and destruction from climate change.

Direct your vitriol at charlatans, not serious scientists that actually publish their work in top journals.