The first lines of a press release from the NSIDC did state this:

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

Polar ice has only been studied extensively for 30 years.  That small amount of solid data is only part of what many believe to be a larger cycle. It is entirely possible that we have turned the corner, and the recovery of ice has already begun on its own.  Even the EPA had a scientiic report that the planet has been cooling for the past decade, and covered it up.

The NSIDC report continues with this positive statement:

Scientist Walt Meier said, “We've preserved a fair amount of first-year ice and second-year ice after this summer compared to the past couple of years. If this ice remains in the Arctic through the winter, it will thicken, which gives some hope of stabilizing the ice cover over the next few years. However, the ice is still much younger and thinner than it was in the 1980s, leaving it vulnerable to melt during the summer.”
The charts and diagrams come directly from the NSIDC report. It does clearly show that since the the record lowers ice in 2005, every year since has shown more ice.
This is called young ice since it is new, and not as thick as the long term polar ice cap. That does make it more susceptible to melting in the summer, yet look at the diagram of second year ice in the slide show below. This crucial point that should not be ignored. If ice can survive one summer, then build upon itself the following winter, that is a sign of regrowth. That is a sign that while over the 30 year average the ice is still low, it is recovering. That is a good thing, and should be celebrated. That is also something that should be the focus of the current research.

So why does the NASA report on this ignore the positive?  Instead, their statement talked about decline as if it was showing no end or stabilization.  

Several recent studies based on data from NASA’s ICESat and QuikScat satellites have shown that, in addition to shrinking geographic ice coverage, the amount of multi-year ice cover – thicker ice that survives more than one summer -- has been declining in recent years.

That is not entirely true, and contradicts the NSIDC statements.  See the first few images in the slide show below.  This comparison shows the increased ice coverage, and in fact less geographic area without ice.  We have a lot of respect for NASA, and honor their accomplishments in this forum often.  But there does seem to be an attempt to not include some aspects of the report which is more widely distributed.  Consider that just last winter, a report came out that Arctic sea ice underestimated by 193,000 square miles.  That is the size of California.  During the winter freeze last winter, arctic sea ice returned to 1979 levels.  Why was that not mentioned in this report as well?

Instead of the overall decline of ice since 1979, new research should focus on what forces are allowing this ice reformation and whether it will continue? In the face of rising CO2, something or many other things act to influence the ice more.
 For the complete images and close up views comparing years see the slide show below.

Folks, this "Global Warming" bullshit is just that; BULLSHIT!  We need to tell these hucksters in no uncertain terms that WE AIN'T BUYING THE SNAKEOIL!

The Examiner (Houston)