Yes, I would also regard my approach to this as a conservative one which is why I would advocate sensible limits on greenhouse gas emissions until we can determine from the evidence what a safe limit would be.

It's certainly now possible to produce electricity from coal-powered plants much more cleanly than previously since environmentalism has put pressure on governments and industry to improve performance:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cleaner-greener-future-for-british-coal-plants

and nuclear plants have a part to play in this as well, in my view. None of the options are in any way 'ideal' or absolutely right or wrong so it's a matter of negotiating a sensible balance which probably won't happen if people on either extreme are being hysterical about 'global conspiracies' or 'the end of the world'.

Any limited changes in the climate will have positive as well as negative effects but, of course, if it's extremely difficult to formulate precise predictions of many of the negative effects, it would be equally difficult to give predictions for positive effects.

100% true. Which is why I tend to lean toward being conservative in our actions at this point.

I do think it is completely clear that smog causing agents like NOx and particulate matter are a real issue so cutting those down to a reasonable level makes complete sense. Which maost 1st world countries have already done, for the most part. CO2 is not part of these smog causing agents so we are dealing with something else when it comes to CO2 (which is one reason why I wouldn't categorize CO2 as a "pollutant" right now).

And really, even modern coal plants are pretty darn clean when it comes to this stuff. Now, older coal plants are an issue. But I am a huge fan of nuclear at this point as it really is one of the most efficient and most clean energy producers. The con of course if making sure we take care of the radioactive waste properly. And it does take some investment up front of course.

Yes, I think that progress in this area (not just the science but also the socio-political arguments) is generally going to be hindered by polarisation so setting out the basics which most people can agree on as laid out in articles such as those may be useful as a foundation for further discussion.

Any limited changes in the climate will have positive as well as negative effects but, of course, if it's extremely difficult to formulate precise predictions of many of the negative effects, it would be equally difficult to give predictions for positive effects.

Good finds!
I thought all 3 of them did a good job of being well balanced and not giving into the "world is ending" conclusion.

This obviously goes beyond the basic science that these articles were seeking to present, but I'd be curious for more study to be done on what could be the positive effects of a minor to moderately warming climate.
(Obviously, some of the effects are so hard to predict since we are dealing again with a chaotic system.)

Here are three papers that seem reasonably balanced:

https://world-nuclear.org/focus/climate-change-and-nuclear-energy/climate-change-the-science.aspx

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998

A few initial thoughts on this:

The figures you highlight above seem to show the tropospheric global averages which demonstrate an increasing trend in recent years.

Yeah, we have seen a small increase since what has been termed "the pause" from ~1998-2015.
The tough part is that when dealing with climate, and not just "weather", we are really dealing with closer to a minimum of 20-50 year trends (manytimes longer).
I too will be curious if we start to see another uptrend coming out of the "pause" and after the El Nino of 2015/2016. But that will take another 5-10 years of data.

In 1990 Spencer and Christy published a paper casting doubt on the veracity of surface temperature records because the satellite measurements from their inception in 1979 showed no increase in tropospheric temperatures. As this paper indicates, this resulted in a considerable concentration of resources on examining the apparent discrepancy between surface and atmospheric temperatures:

As surface temperature records have gotten better, the discrepancy is definitely less. HadCRUT is the most recognized surface dataset we have right now I believe. The surface temperature record is much harder to work with, especially when trying to get an "average earthly temperature". The surface temperature's do usually show a slight bit more warming than the satellite record, but still not huge.

I've been searching to see if Spencer is included in the hundreds of scientists and thousands of experts that are involved with the IPCC Working Group 1 in the production of their reports but I haven't found anything so far. I would be interested to know if he has any input.

You know, I can't remember of his involvement with the IPCC. I know Dr. Christy has been involved with the IPCC, and Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer do work closely together.

A few initial thoughts on this:

The figures you highlight above seem to show the tropospheric global averages which demonstrate an increasing trend in recent years. In 1990 Spencer and Christy published a paper casting doubt on the veracity of surface temperature records because the satellite measurements from their inception in 1979 showed no increase in tropospheric temperatures. As this paper indicates, this resulted in a considerable concentration of resources on examining the apparent discrepancy between surface and atmospheric temperatures:

https://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/ThorneEtAl.WIREs2010.pdf

I've been searching to see if Spencer is included in the hundreds of scientists and thousands of experts that are involved with the IPCC Working Group 1 in the production of their reports but I haven't found anything so far. I would be interested to know if he has any input.

However, I begin with the assumption that his evidence is not contaminated by those opinions.

Right, every scientific proposal stands or falls based upon the scientific evidence for or against it.
So while it is good to be aware of things like that, it is ultimately irrelevant to the validity of the evidence for or against a scientific proposal.

He is quite well-known for his support of, for example, the Cornwall Alliance and his preference for 'intelligent design' over evolution. However, I begin with the assumption that his evidence is not contaminated by those opinions.

he does seem to have a religious/political agenda

Where have you read anything of Dr. Spencer where there is direct evidence of a religious and/or political agenda?

Secondly, that really would become irrelevant because the science must stand or fall on its own. If what is presented is right, then it is right for scientific reasons, not religious or political reasons. If it is wrong, it is wrong for scientific reasons.

The science is what matters.