1998 vs 2007 or La Niña vs El Niño

A few days ago we reported on how 2007 was remarkably cooler than previous years. Now the New York Times, in their entirely unbiased way, has noted the story and rushed out to defend the global warming models and their theorists. They note that the world was going through the La Niña weather/ocean current phenomenon and it was responsible for things being much cooler. So last year's cooling is not important because of this other phenomenon.

You can even find comments about how the warming trends are continuing and references to 1998 being the warmest year ever. In fact James Hansen, the grandfather of global warming doomsdayism, just recently referenced 1998 again to remind the public how warm it was globally. There were warmer years in the United States about 60 years earlier, 1934 to be precise but he is referring to global averages in 1998..

El Niño is basically the opposte phenomenon of La Niña. What I find interesting is that 1998 had a major exhibition of the the El Niño pattern yet Hansen and the warming alarmists rarely mention that. The one phenomenon happens last year and the globe is unusually cold so warming theory holds up because La Niña is responsible for the cooling. Yet when they point to 1998 we are supposed to ignore El Niño and its impact. Apparently the La Niña/El Niño phenomenon is only relevant when it supports warming alarmism and unimportant when it mitigates it.

A warm 1998 is dragged in our faces constantly while El Niño is ignored. A cold 2007 is dismissed because of La Niña. Is there are consistency to this?