Are Satellite Temperature Data Reliable?

Is there a scientific bias against that which does not support global warming?

Yesterday, I posted an article on global warming claiming 2015 to be 'by far' the warmest year on record. Computer models from NASA, NOAA, Japan Met Agency, and USC Berkeley all agreed that such was the case.

The article posed that the El Nino event currently happening may cause the temperature to rise by about 1/3rd of a degree; although, as I pointed out, this year's El Nino is very close to being on a par with the 1997-98 El Nino - the strongest ever. That El Nino resulted in a temperature spike of 2/3rds of a degree. 

The point is by using an average El Nino temperature spike rather than the more relevant 1997-98 event, the article appears to try to minimize the El Nino effect and, therefore, exaggerate the effects of anthropogenic CO2 production on global warming. As I also pointed out yesterday, this too is disingenuous since it has never been proven and, indeed, the best proof, or science, seems to indicate little or no anthropogenic effect on global warming.

Temperature data from satellite observations indicated that 2015 was, in fact, only the 3rd warmest year on record since those data have been tracked - 1979. This finding was handled by scientists informing us that satellite data are not reliable, that there is a larger margin of error. The video below indicates that the data actually verifies quite well with upper air observations. 

So the question is, are satellite data less reliable than the heavily messaged, unverified temperatures from the surface? Or, are scientists simply dismissing that which does not fit with their preconceived conclusions?

What do you think?