Thanks for that perspective, which if included in the original press release--as far as most media outlets apparently read--would have at least put it on a sounder footing. But it still seems a pretty weak reed to support what's been done with it. After all, this isn't a poll, looking for the strongest candidate for an election. The ranking still implies a 62% chance that 2014 wasn't the warmest year.
Perhaps this reflects the difference between how engineers and scientists look at such things. In my world, you wouldn't invest in a project if it only had a 38% chance of making an attractive return, or consider a process safe if it only had a 38% chance of not failing catastrophically.