Media or research? These two are very different. Media may sell you canvas bags and paper straws, making you feel good with stories driven from big oil about your personal responsibilities. Climate science on the other hand is well studied and well replicated with lots of validation. But that doesn't mean media won't distort what a work actually says. These things are very different but many confuse the two. Just because you get a false story doesn't mean the scientists told that false story. Never make this mistake.
It's well studied, but not well studied. Climatology is essentially a branch of history and suffers the same issues with low quality sources that can't be upgraded via experiment because they're recordings of past events, ideological bias amongst practitioners and other issues.
Well you have the opportunity to make an argument. But I've personally worked with the data. So your going to need more then a "trust me bro" to convince me or many others.
See my comments on PAGES2K on another thread, reachable from my profile link. But as you've worked with the data presumably nothing in those posts is news to you, and you're well aware of the sorry state of paleoclimatology.
