We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Spencer's website doesn't list Spencer & Braswell 2013. Perhaps it's not yet published. The most recent paper listed is Spencer & Braswell 2011.
Spencer & Braswell 2011 resulted in the editor of the journal resigning because he thought the peer review process was insufficient, and that the paper shouldn't have been published in its current form. The primary objection was that the paper "essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents." Furthermore, the paper was widely reported to have reached conclusions much beyond its rather modest claims.
It could be, in any individual paper, if discussion of the topic at large was not the purpose.
You seem quite certain that the editor resigning because of this claimed flaw should be taken at face value. Taking an unpopular stance is another possible reason.
And then there are the numbers. That all 73 climate models overestimated what was actually observed is at minimum, worthy of comment.
BTW "...widely reported to have reached conclusions much beyond its rather modest claims" is ambiguous. Is Spencer overconcluding, or those reporting on him? How is it possible to have modest claims yet go beyond them? I am not criticising your comment here, simply puzzled by it.