The world's oceans are already in a warming trend that could alter fish stocks, perhaps damaging coral reefs that are vital nurseries for tropical species while boosting northern stocks of cod or herring.
The concluding sentence then states:
In a sign of how higher temperatures might help some fish stocks, a period of warmer waters in the 1920s allowed cod to spawn off Greenland and let a new stock break away from Icelandic waters.
Wait, what? Cod being found up north, which was a concern stated early in the article, happened before when there was a period of warmer waters in the 1920s? Well, why did that period of warming occur? How much warmer was it? Can it tell us anything about the increases in temperature seen today? Isn't this worth elaborating on ?
When I read pieces like this, it seems to me that a lot of the "science" behind global warming is intentionally skewed to reach a certain result, in part by ignoring evidence that counters the accepted view. That doesn't mean global warming is not real. It just means that many of the people pushing for action to deal with it are not all that credible.