Thanks for the comment. A agree that their assertion/statement is accurate, absolutely. Yet the way it is positioned, particularly as a headline, is misleading

Thanks for the comment. A agree that their assertion/statement is accurate, absolutely. Yet the way it is positioned, particularly as a headline, is misleading to the reader because it ignores the broader context of the 2013 data. You can be accurate yet misleading. The graph clearly shows that the 2013 observation is almost exactly where all prior observations would predict it would be. It is the job of newspapers to put information in context. A more appropriate headline about the amount of ice would say "arctic sea ice continues decline". A sentence in a first paragraph could say "though this year's observation was 30% higher than last year's record low, it is in line with long term decline in the amount of ice". That said, WSJ has to sell papers/ads and their headline is admittedly more eye catching, particularly to the stereotypical conservative that is skeptical of climate-change/global warming.