"Warmest year since 1880" scream the headlines, but what's that mean? The press won't say.
JOURNALISM: When you read a science report claiming that 2016 was the hottest year on record, you might expect that you will get numbers. And you would be wrong. “Note to the New York Times: ‘trouncing’ and ‘blown past’ are phrases appropriate to sports reporting, not science reporting. Except that no sports reporter would dare write an article in which he never bothers to give you the score of the big game. . . . It’s almost like they’re hiding something. And that is indeed what we find.”
TLDR: Increase is one-hundredth of a degree. Margin of error is a tenth of a degree. So it’s all bullshit.
Even the WSJ's reporters play this game, sadly, although this one at least hints that there may be less going on than meets the headline:
Some researchers have argued that the rise in global temperatures peaked during the very strong El Niño year of 1998 and has stalled since. NOAA scientists and other research groups, however, re-examined the data and reported in several studies over the past two years that the apparent slowdown was due to measurement errors that, when corrected, show that global temperatures have risen steadily.
Now that the El Niño phenomenon has waned, many experts say they expect that global temperatures in 2017 will be lower.
When celebrity warming hysteric give up their private jets, yachts and mansions, when governments stop holding global warming summits in comfy locations like Bali, and when the movement's scientists stop adjusting their numbers to "correct" those that don't fit their computer models, then I might start taking the matter seriously and perhaps I'll start considering the idea that we should at least look at what we can do to adjust to warmer temperatures. Especially if we start being told what those actual temperatures are, and not fed phony scary headlines.