https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...e-through-heart-skeptics-argument-ncna1033646
"....a pair of studies published Wednesday provides stark evidence that the rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been far more rapid and widespread than any warming period in the past 2,000 years — a finding that undercuts claims that today’s global warming isn’t necessarily the result of human activity.
One of the studies, published in the journal Nature, shows that the Little Ice Age and other natural fluctuations affected only limited regions of the planet at a time, making modern warming the first and only planetwide warm period in the past two millennia. The other study, published in Nature Geoscience, shows that the rate of modern warming has far outpaced changes that occurred before the rise of the industrial era".
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02179-2
Again, @Red , the fact is there is political bias in current reports generally, and Nature is part of the crime. Even forty years ago, I could see the bias in Nature. Our whole society, across the entire Progressive era, has been biased in support of the movement.
So here is what you need to consider.....
alarmists can't be trusted any more than a lynch mob. High pitched "cause" pushers are not even talking in real objective language.
The Nature article, like many others, deliberately frames the report in alarmist rhetoric, and in fact huge lies. The lie here is to consider only the past 2000 years.
The climate has been changing longer than that. It's been doing ice ages/interglacial warms in cycles of almost fifty times that scale. So it is a lie to pick out any 2000 years and project the discussion as a deviation from the ice age cycle.
Even within interglacial warm peaks which last 10000 to 15000 years, there are "waves" of changes that are larger than what we have seen in the past 150 years.
I have seen some interesting skeptic material on the equations being used to predict the impact of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, which seemed fairly reasonable at my level of education in math. The question should be raised. We should insist that the models get the equation right. CO2 does increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat, and alter both radiation reaching the surface.... warming the ocean and land, and the radiation being "lost" to space because all warm bodies radiate heat. CO2 is likely the reason we have had rainforests at the poles in geologic history....according to the fossil record... well rainforests sorta like the Pacific Northwest seashore.