"After constantly talking about 1998, you then say that if it's beaten in the next five years that would just be a statistically unimportant anomaly due to a powerful El Nino."

If it was actually due to El Nino.
No one at the moment is saying that 1998 global highest temperature wasn't due to El Nino [or just to be clear, one phenomenon included when one speaks of natural variability].

But I wasn't saying that the high temperatures during the time that Kyoto agreement was signed by most countries was due to increasing levels of global CO2.
And I'm not the one claiming that natural variability can not account for much of the warming during the 20th Century.

If I included the peak temperature from El Nino in the same way believers tried to "proved" CO2 was causing global temperature to accelerate, then I would have say we currently in a steep decline in global temperature- rather than what I actually say- that it's flat to declining [not increasing].
Btw, I am not saying it will continue being flat or declining but rather I am stating what it actually has been for about the last decade.

"What exactly is 1998 then but the same thing?"

Your bet is about peak year temperatures rather than yearly treads. It is your claim that human emission of CO2 which is and has been more than doubling per decade for over a century, has and is going to have a significant affect upon global temperature.

I don't think human emission of CO2 was significant in 1950 [and obviously even less in 1920 or earlier] nor do I think it would be significant in 2050. But just suppose I'm wrong, if human emission of CO2 was [as you are claiming] in 2000 to the present was having a large affect, why are global temperature not increasing?

Why did models which understated the amount CO2 which would be added by human activity predict that at the present global temperature would be significantly higher then they they actually have been?
And why should future models be considered useful if they don't change the variables which are giving them incorrect results?

In other words when natural variability is indicated by temperature readings, some say it's from CO2, when temperature are not increasing you want stress it's natural variability- and btw, not be critical of foolish people who are expected to be scientific who say such things as the warming "caused" by CO2 must be hiding [somehow].

"Re UAH temp series, I don't know enough about it to know whether it'll get beaten in the next five years like I expect the various surface series. I'm happy to bet over exclusively water-based instrumental records."

You seem to be suggesting you know more about land stations measurements and ocean temperature readings, than compared to satellite measurements.

It seems to me that if you want an accurate measure of global temperature and one wants compare temperature after 1979 [since time satellite measurement started] - so therefore temperatures of last few years with the coming few years- satellite measurement is the best choice.

Land temperature and ocean temperature taken by ships have a strong suit in understanding the longer temperature trends and their context.
I don't claim that satellite measurement is error free, but does seem to have less problems than compared in other ways of measuring global temperature.
And I think that if those Kyoto signer instead had spent 1/10 the money they wasted, finding ways of improving the means of monitoring of weather, and disseminating the results, it would been a far better way to spend tax dollars.