Let us examine this story here and it will become obvious very quickly how the BBC and other powerful media outlets can dictate agenda's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19330307



Anyone care to have a stab at what actually is news here? I have bolded some bits to assist....

Have no idea

The last supposed record year of 2007:


No surprise to those wanting to make a story out of nothing:

Prof Seymore says:
"The fact that Cryosat showed thinner ice last winter, it is not surprising to me that it looks like we will have a record minimum this year."

Then it is revealed that the source of the latest ice figures is NOT the same as the last RECORD in 2007 because the new source WAS NOT launched until 2010, three years AFTER the supposed last low ice figure. They are NOT comparing like with like - they are using a different tape measure and measuring system.
Also, the three largest contributors to the European Space Agency (ESA) are France, Germany, and the EU, with the EU being the largest contributor. The combined contributions of France, Germany, and the EU amount to 58.3% of the ESA's budget, which givse these three sources of finance a controlling say in any 'results'. And I don't trust ANYTHING that comes out of the EU. See the figures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency

Over and above as usual westonman...

The simple point I was trying to get across was that they emphasise record ice sheet shrinkage implying all along this is due to climate change and that the data they present is unequivocal and not to be questioned....

Without getting into the fact this was data from 2 satellites the real stinger is the dataset is but a mere blip on the radar.....

How long has mankind been deploying satellites to record pictures of the Earth's surface?

How long have we had ice sheets at the north and south poles?

Not over the top at all. I was pointing out that the BBC has not made any attempt to compare data from the measurement system used to produce the 2005 'record', with data from the 2010 launched satellite that supposedly produced the 2012 'record' low ice quantity. We must assume the measurement system used in the 2005 result must still be in use and available, and therefore the data from it should be properly compared with the new data source in any honest reporting, taking into account all uncertainties. If there has been no proper comparison of data between the 2005 source and the 2010 launched source, then a record for 2012 can't be claimed without mentioning the lack of measurement continuity, traceability, and uncertainties between the different measurement sources. In fact, NO measurement has any meaning or worth unless it is accompanied with an UNCERTAINTY factor, something that is very rarely mentioned in articles directed at the public. The BBC article only mentions the 2010 launched satellite's 'result' for 2012. Clearly a case of unscientific cherry-picking to achieve the desired result of 'proving' anthropogenic global warming to those unfamiliar with scientific and engineering practices.

I agree with both of you. (And I think Geezer meant "over and above the call of duty" not "over the top".)

In that case, my apologies are due to you Geezer466 for misinterpreting you.

N apology needed. To be honest until Jon pointed it out I never got the context of your subsequent reply anyway..