I'm no bush apologist, but these are ~spy satellite~ photographs provided to scientist while kept classified, as all ~spy satellite~ photos are.

@1 Yeah, because ~spy satellites~ taking pictures of ~Alaska~ could get us in a lot of trouble.

The photographs were taken by spy satellites, then requested by scientists as part of a program that allows scientists to request classified photographs of environmentally sensitive areas. At the time, the Bush Administration released the photographs to the scientists but deemed them unsuitable for public release. Earlier this month, the National Academy of Sciences recommended the Obama Administration declassify the photos. The Interior Department released the photos to the public the same day, as reported in a July 16 story by Reuters.

@3 And why do you think he (Bush) deemed them unsuitable for public release in the first place?

Gee I wonder if there are any vulnerable oil fields in Alaska, #8?

Um... a one-year trend does constitute global climate change.

Get it while you still can....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxN_pbMOF…

@4 +++++ slog comment of the year.

@9 And why wouldn't those oil fields still be vulnerable now? What's changed? The main thing I can think of is that we no longer have an anti-science administration in the White House.

Look, I'll admit that I'm speculating, but unless you're part of the inner workings of the U.S. spy community, so are you.

@9
No, but I think I can see "Quitter" palin's house from there!

Hurry up and do-in mankind already. Disgusting creature.

the debate is whether this warming is due to human activity, or if it's just part of the planet's natural heating and cooling cycles.

That debate is completely manufactured, just like the evolution "controversy."

I think Markus Rothkranz has the answer:

http://www.markusrothkranz.com/iceberg/i…

Wow, the Guardian has gone further down the path toward a left-wing tabloid-rag than I thought.

(1) It's thinkable that the Bush administration didn't release these because of its position on AGW, but the article presents no evidence of that. The Bush adminstration was way more into keeping stuff classified than the Obama administration. This could well just be a case of reflexive secrecy for all military satelite imagery.

(2) This is not "evidence" for AGW in any scientific sense. It's pictures of one place seperated by one year. One-year fluctuations are way down on the noise of the climate record, and there are so many places in the world that it's no problem to find some place with a big fluctuation in either direction over any given year. This isn't to say that there isn't good scientific evidence for AGW, but these pictures aren't it. They have a lot more PR value than scientific value.

I'd take a closer look at the photos, but The Guardian decided to pop up an ad for an Escalade right over the top. How fitting.

On the plus side, all that dark water will make it easier for Skip Gates to hide from the Cambridge police.

Holy shit.

Global Warming: if its true or not. Some say the Earth will go through ups and downs. So they use that as an excuse.

Lets just say fuck it, its not true.

What is so fucking wrong with crushing a water bottle before you through it away? Using less electricity once in a fucking while? Recycling? Its fucking easy to do!

Apathy and laziness is the real reason people say shit like "global warming doesn't exist". Even if it "doesn't exist".. why don't we do something to help the future? Help our children, our nephews/nieces, grandkids?? Shit, what is so wrong with that? Especially when we easily could. Easy little things we can do to perhaps slow the process and decrease our waste... yeah.. thats a good thing.

Temperature in Seattle July 29, 2008: 78
Temperature in Seattle July 29, 2009: 100

Omg golobal warming