2. Most people don't deny that the earth seems to be warming."
This article seems to do just that, by implication if not by outright statement. If they're saying that the Medieval Warm Period has to be treated as a global phenomenon rather than a localised effect, then they're basically insisting that no change has happened.
I don't think they are arguing the first point, or really the second part. It is my interpretation, which could be wrong, that they are saying that world was warmer in the past and so warming isn't necessarily cataclysmic.
2. Most people don't deny that the earth seems to be warming."
This article seems to do just that, by implication if not by outright statement. If they're saying that the Medieval Warm Period has to be treated as a global phenomenon rather than a localised effect, then they're basically insisting that no change has happened.