As usual, the climate alarmists -- notably, NASA and NOAA among them -- have been disseminating very slanted news on the subject.
First, even if 2016 turns out to be the "hottest year", it will be by no more than one or two hundredths of a degree... far smaller than any realistic margin of error.
Second, they really went out of their way to play up the unusual "arctic warming" this last season, without bothering to mention that all that cold Arctic air was simply shifted -- via a weather event, not climate -- south over Asia. While the Arctic was experiencing all that warm weather, an equally large area of extreme cold was setting record cold temperatures of -60C and below in Russia, and its edges reached as far south as China.
And it was a brief event: Arctic sea ice has regained the same extent its had in other recent years. And all the while Greenland has been adding massive new record amounts of land ice mass.
I don't dispute that it may be warming. But the news has been very much one-sided and has only disseminated the "alarm" half of the story. As when the Arctic got warm, but elsewhere got cold enough to at least compensate for it in the global "average".

Haha, well, enjoy your last hurrah. All of these claims rely on climate data that has been generated from a few government sponsored groups. In a short time we will get to see the real data and maybe you will be the "science deniers" all of a sudden. Remember, shadenfreude isn't just for Germans anymore.

I so look forward to the coming public debate on the whole manmade climate change issue...It will be very interesting to see all this "settled science" dragged out into the light of day to be viewed and evaluated by PhD level skeptics who actually have some power..

"And it doesn't hurt that big names like Google are choosing to get in on the action either – earlier this month the company pledged to run all of its global operations on renewable energy from next year onward."
For once, Google copying Apple in a way I am happy about.

"All of these claims rely on climate data that has been generated from a few government sponsored groups." Dumb denialist meme which I've never seen a denier substantiate with evidence.
"In a short time we will get to see the real data..." What's the hold up? Did the Koch brothers run out of money and are now waiting for donations to fund some science?
"I so look forward to the coming public debate..." Someone who obviously has no understanding of science or the scientific process. Science is not debated in the public arena _ because, er...most of the public doesn't understand the science. It's already been debated for decades in appropriate scientific forums and through the publishing of scientific papers. Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, PhD level deniers have not been able to make a dent in the science.

The coral bleaching was a lie; the scientist that discovered the lie and published the facts (photos with faked dates etc) was reprimanded for "damaging the reputation of the university", and banned from criticizing all future output of the University.

"Experts say that a 350 ppm [concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere] is safe" ??? Rubbish ! What do this mean to begin with and how could "they" know ? "350" was the figure in 1987/1988 not specially "safe" or "unsafe" years... West Antarctica ? Sure, but what about submarine volcanoes effects ? And after a "super El nino" 2016 year, who knows what would be 2017 or maybe 2018 global temperatures ? Did you notice a new lobby power of "renewable" (intermittent) energy industry ? Not yet as powerful as pharma, oil, but fact growing in influence.... Oh sorry they are the (only authorized) Goods" !

What I wonder about is the amount of energy necessary to carry out climate change.
How much energy would be required to alter the course of continental drift? Or a Tsunami? Or a Volcano?
Can Man apply sufficient energy to change any of these so that they would obey his liking?
Do we know what energy causes global warming,  Cosmic radiation, Earth's core rotation amongst others. Can Man change the core's spin rate? If he could, would it be a good idea ?
I very much support alternative energy over coal burning, and certainly support attempts to cut down on plastic pollution. But hand trillions of dollars of tax money to politicians to spend on climate change? I think not.

Slanted news, half truths, and complete lies. Typical media feed crap.
If you check Google's latest time-lapse vids, you'll note that 90% of the glaciers are merely going through their cycles. Only one disappeared, while Antarctic glaciers thickened, indicating that, as real scientists knew would happen, the cold spot simply shifted from one place to another. (Right, Annie?)
Like most of the folks here, I'm for real science, not some alarmist pap smeared about by the likes of Hansen's tainted NOAA/NASA/Goddard, or lying CRU @ East Anglia, et al. Yes, let's shift away from coal and into alternative energy. Let's move away from fossil fuels and into electric vehicles. But let's stop wasting billions/trillions of dollars to sooth the massive ego of a climate alarmist, please. Instead of throwing money at Big Energy, why not finish insulating all the older homes so they stop wasting energy? Teach the wasters to watch their use. Maybe put some homeless folks to work at that, giving them the money they need to get into a home. Why are the auto manufacturers still putting out larger and larger V-8/10/12s while they also work on eco tech? Greenies, stop lying and start teaching the truth. Maybe everyone who is still ignorant about their footprint is just waiting for that bit of truth to make their own change. Did you ever think of that? Honesty is good for the soul. Get some.

There is no way this will be reversed as long as humanity grows by billions more. Go anthropocene!