The 3rd link is more understandable than the 2nd.
It covers the problem with Spencer's 2011 paper. The early aside that their formulation "may violate conservation of energy" is a hammer-blow. (Violation of conservation of energy is never allowed in a correctly-defined system.) But he's kind enough to assume that it doesn't and still shows that Spencer's analysis is wrong. (Spencer tries to argue that changes in clouds are cause of sea surface temperature changes rather than an effect.)
A more conversational explanation of the problems is a review of Spencer's book.
Lots of scientists are religious to various degrees. Those that are still good at doing science know enough to keep their religious beliefs out of their scientific work and not let dogma drive their conclusions.
The data and analysis will continue to accumulate and will (I'm reasonably confident) continue to show that the AGW picture outlined in the IPCC reports, the scientific journals, etc., is broadly correct.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
A more conversational explanation of the problems is a review of Spencer's book.
Lots of scientists are religious to various degrees. Those that are still good at doing science know enough to keep their religious beliefs out of their scientific work and not let dogma drive their conclusions.
The data and analysis will continue to accumulate and will (I'm reasonably confident) continue to show that the AGW picture outlined in the IPCC reports, the scientific journals, etc., is broadly correct.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.