But pointing out 1998 was El Nino and therefore not really a record should also disqualify the next El Nino from being a record year. (We would also disqualify 2007/8 as a record drop because of La Nina).
I didn't say that 1998 wasn't a record year; it is. The problem is that this record year is being used as a starting point for a trendline from which mistaken assumptions can be drawn.
When the next El Nino year sets a record, it will be "publically" clear that there is still an underlying warming trend.
The situation which would make the warming trend even more clear is a new temperature record in a non-El Nino year (though I can hear the skeptical arguments against it already warming up offstage). 2005 came within less than a tenth of a degree of that happening. Skeptics just say that the trend was "flat" from 1998 to 2005, ignoring how statistics work and the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 (as is clear on the nice plot I found).
Somebody oughta discuss how batting or bowling averages work... i.e. Chipper Jones can go 0-for-4 in a game and still not exactly be in a "slump", right?