No scientist will claim that one "hottest" year makes a trend, but it's consistent with the general predictions of the models that we should be having more hot years than otherwise. And just because it's hot on average doesn't mean there aren't some cold spots - it's winter after all, and weather happens.

There are differences of opinion as to why things are getting hotter. Opinion doesn't need to be fact-based. There are good scientific reasons to believe that human activity is contributing in a significant way. But you don't have to "believe" that WE are doing it to observe what's happening.

If you want a trains connection: projections based on observed rates of sea level rise (based on observed water temperature and land-based ice melt, to a large degree) show that they will certainly be a couple of feet higher by mid-century, and probably on the order of 3m higher by 2100. Add to that the effect of tides and storms. Fixed assets like railroads take a while to move or reconstruct. So how many key segments of railroads are likely to need attention - raising grade, adding seawalls, or even relocation - in 20-30-50-100 years. Major structures like bridges usually have a 100-year or so design lift; for those in areas with tidal action, were they designed to work with sea level 10 feet higher? Worth thinking about in terms of capital and operational planning.

The Davos story, from whatever branch of The Press, was really a dig at the people getting together. They'll talk about global warming. How much CO2 did they all add to the atmosphere getting there and home again? Compared, say, to running Amtrak for (how long)? Or running somebody's (France?) HSR for (how long)?