[StreamBright]

So I guess there is no scientific reason, just living memory. For me such articles just lack the scientific merit and the only purpose is trying to cause mass hysteria. Earlier it was about how we all going the freeze to death, nowadays it is how we are all going to die because of global warming. In fact Earth went through several warm and cool periods, even if you look back just few hundred years. I am all for reducing CO2 and I am pretty successfully reduced unnecessary CO2 production in my work by using more efficient solutions and not wasting energy because this is what is under my control to help mother Earth. Writing click baity articles without context and scientific merit is not going to help anybody.

[cerebellum42]

To cause "hysteria" in the way you're implying the general public would have to read the headline any other way than it is meant in the first place. But joe shmoe wasn't ever going to consider that 1000 years ago earth may have been in a different place climate wise so they're going to read the headline exactly the same whether it has the qualifier "in recorded history" or not.

[keymone]

Or maybe it’s only you who considers it clickbait and everybody else immediately understood the article was about recorded history of temperatures, because, you know, it’s kinda common sense?

[StreamBright]

I do not debate whenever it was the record in the last 100 years, I just try to understand what is the scientific implication.

If you look at the bigger picture it means nothing:

Last 65M years:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_C...

Lat 10K years:

https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000...

Now please explain to me that how looking at only the last 100 years is relevant or it prooves anything.