The first website you cite, Climate Depot, is severely biased toward right-wing anti climate science agendas, and has been classified as "conspiracy-pseudoscien

The first website you cite, Climate Depot, is severely biased toward right-wing anti climate science agendas, and has been classified as "conspiracy-pseudoscience" by Media Bias/Fact Check. They further comment that "Overall, we rate the Climate Depot a strong Pseudoscience source based on the promotion of human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and the use of poor sources who have failed numerous fact checks." I'm not sure how an anecdote of one climate prediction failing (your CNN article) is a rebuttal against decades of climate research and unanimous consensus from the vast majority of scientists. As for Dr. Roy Spencer—his credentials are impressive, but he is just one scientist. The scientific consensus on climate change is established, and "nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[3]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change"[0]. I don't particularly care for the opinion of one lone man. -- [0]: Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872. https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1003187107 https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.1003187107