I see two possible interpretations of this article:
1. It's 100% accurate, balanced and fair portrait of what happened. In which case the scientists have pretty much failed. I mean, I knew about the medieval warm period already and if you didn't, you do now.
2. It's in some way exaggerated or alarmist and is an example of traditional media running a "the dangers of Wikipedia's model" story that they seem to enjoy doing whenever they can.
1. It's 100% accurate, balanced and fair portrait of what happened. In which case the scientists have pretty much failed. I mean, I knew about the medieval warm period already and if you didn't, you do now.
2. It's in some way exaggerated or alarmist and is an example of traditional media running a "the dangers of Wikipedia's model" story that they seem to enjoy doing whenever they can.
Either way, I'm not worried.