Are you interested in how scientists cross-check data?

I think most of the answerers on here are not interested. They'd rather make it up ('satellites are fixed up by 2.3mm/yr because of Hong Kong!) rather than follow the actual scientific methods used.

Daddeo: Cryosat-II will be used to measure trends in ice extent, area and hopefully volume. In a decade+ this should be some really useful and interesting climate data. It'll give us a good idea of how thick Arctic ice is, for example, which will allow us to test models better.

It was an interesting article to read, glad you linked to it.

Being a scientist myself I’m familiar with the validation processes, peer-reviewing etc. It can be a long-winded process and for impatient people like me it can be annoying. I’ve got work more than a year old that I can’t do anything with until all stages are completed.

I’m sure a lot of people think that scientists do a bit of research then knock something up on a computer and that’s the end of the matter. In reality, acceptance only comes about after rigorous checking and any scientist worth their salt wants to know that the methods and procedures employed are accurate.

This was interesting but I fail to see what it has to do with global warming, pro or con.

there is plenty of ice left in my freezer.

yes i am