Lord Beaverbrook: I just love this 'caveat' from the MO (my bold):

Uncertainties arising from incomplete global coverage, particularly a lack of observations from polar regions, and limitations of the measurements used to produce the data sets, have been included in the calculations.

When I read the BBC's report that temperature records were 'shattered' in 2015 - by 0.13 Deg C - I wondered just how many people would relate to being 'shattered' by such a meaningless number.

I was further intrigued when I looked at the global graphic of T (colour-coded) where the predominant hot-spot was in northern Russia (approx 100E 60N). See BBC here - hotter than even the El Nino. How did GISS and NOAA get temp reports from this area? And how many?

Lord Beaverbrook:

I thought the article missed a little light editing:

This point was echoed by Dr Gavin Schmidt, from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which oversees the Nasa data record. ensures NASA makes new data records.

"The reason why this is such a warm record year is because of the long-term warming trend that we have invented, and there is no evidence that we will ever allow to be published that that warming trend has slowed, paused, or hiatused at any point in the last few decades," he told reporters.

And this makes me howl gales.

Peter Stott drivels, on (BBC News24) warmunist TV tonight, telling it how the weather is seen through polarized vision and rose tinted spectacles of the Met Office, needless to say, "year 2015: it's the warmest EVAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

He very self consciously (caught with his pants down?) - muttered and um-ed and ah-ed and admitted to EL NINO but stressed that, mankind's emissions of CO₂ was really to blame, innit? The lazy beeb patsy acted as prompter, "are we going to have to expect more crazy weather - man?".............now you know the answer - yep said the Wet Office bod zealot and "hells teeth it is all your fault".

"now buy us a new supercomputer"