Sure, that's exactly what I'm doing, when I didn't even make a comment about the content of either article.
Well duh, neither article is scientific, since they're journalistic articles by the media, not scientific ones by scientists.
What scientists think is part of the scientific method. Getting a paper published in a journal is the
beginning of science, not the end of it.
If this paper has merit, will will be referenced, and supported, and its conclusions will be supported. If not, then it'll just be a bunch of words in an archive somewhere.
Not really, at least not in the way you think "wrong" means. This paper doesn't invalidate AGW by any means,
it just proposes that the models are inaccurate (which means they are wrong, but there's a difference between wrong meaning the amount of warming is 20% less and wrong meaning there's cooling not warming).
Dr. Spencer has been on this for many years, this paper is nothing new.
The standard hasn't changed, it only appears so because you don't understand the standard to begin with.