Even a cursory look through the literature on climate change (that's the stuff the actual scientists working in the field write, peer-reviewed) would show that we moved on some time ago from the discussion about whether global warming is happening to what the consequences are.

The bias shown in reporting that the article highlights is pretty much non-existent, given that for science at least the matter is pretty much settled; indeed the climate deniers have had a platform for way too long as the stakes are high if we don't react with definitive action soon. In fact, the two-year cooling is a bit of a false-flag as it doesn't alter the trend of climbing temperatures and amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and is a natural fluctuation, a wobble on the upward trajectory of the graph. The cooling is largely due to El Nina cooling the Pacific and this has effects on global temperatures, and this will be reversed when El Nino kicks in and water temperatures rise again.

Articles that enable the sort of science-denial shown in statements such as the one Acme quoted above are motivated by non-science concerns that seem to be mainly related to religion, right-wing ideology or business. Of course in the Trumpish/Brexiteer world we live in it seems people prefer simple but wrong explanations to complex and correct ones. Climate science is massively complex, and trying to get certain parts of our society to pay attention for more than a few seconds is becoming increasingly difficult. This is why it is these very people who tend to make shit up*


*See also flat-earthers, chem trail advocates, creationists, moon-landing deniers and Man U fans.