They did get the "sciency" bits right, though. They just refer to the IPCC. Your guy's arguments are "here's a bit of data they haven't bothered to fit." I can't even make out if the presented data has any basis in fact.
And England was pretty fucking cold in the 17th century. And after a particularly grim winter in 1709, the thaw "brought widespread flooding. This was a major catastrophe for a largely agricultural economy. The crops were ruined, grain prices soared sixfold and many communities were faced with starvation. Per capita gross domestic product dropped by 23%, and did not fully recover for another 10 years, all from a single terrible winter." (quote from the Guardian).
So you are willing to eschew any principals of respecting credentials because you want to agree with a predetermined result? Doesn’t sound at all like science to me.
The IPCC report has scientific underpinnings; it's not a predetermined result, but the reflection of continuing research. It's about the best we can do. Of course it's an approximation with errors, such is the fate of all models.
But to just point at a few short-comings, and do so with blatant disrespect for the context, and then conclude everything it says must be false is what I'd call unscientific. The linked article on wattsupwiththat doesn't even try to provide an alternative explanation. There have been skeptics who came up with reasonable objections and alternatives, but that article isn't one of them. It does falsely represent the 1.5°C threshold issue, though, to the point of manipulative dishonesty.
And England was pretty fucking cold in the 17th century. And after a particularly grim winter in 1709, the thaw "brought widespread flooding. This was a major catastrophe for a largely agricultural economy. The crops were ruined, grain prices soared sixfold and many communities were faced with starvation. Per capita gross domestic product dropped by 23%, and did not fully recover for another 10 years, all from a single terrible winter." (quote from the Guardian).