Color me a bit skeptical of both journalists and scientists. Journalists are in business to sell stories. However accurate, if it doesn't sell, they're in the soup line. Which sells better, the story of a trend that's been going on for over a thousand years, or a tale of possible impending doom?

OTOH, climatological research scientists largely work off grants - universities, government, etc. Without grant money, they have to go back to teaching or being a TV meteorologist. Again, which is more likely to pry loose the maximum amount of grant money - researching a trend that's been going on for over a thousand years, or checking out possible impending doom? Look at the money trail and you will see ample reasons for both groups to sensationalize.

As I remember the ice age theory, it started with the theory that humans were causing global cooling. When it was shown that the cooling, although real, had been a minor blip & that the earth was continuing its slow recovery from the mini-ice age, (which itself followed the Medieval Optimum,) the story then became that the earth's warming would cause more snow to fall in the northern latitudes, which would be unable to fully melt each summer, and the ice sheets would soon encroach on New York, Chicago, and major European cities. When it was noted that most glaciers in the northern hemisphere were retreating, the dire warnings were changed again. Time after time, computer projections have failed to happen, so the programs were 'tweaked' to produce the observed results. All the programs have proved so far is that with the proper adjustments they can show what's already happened. I don't believe any of them anymore.