Obama Declassifies Spy Satellite Images Revealing Climate Change Devastation Bush Tried to Hide

  • Published on July 28th, 2009

Declassified satellite images from Barrow, AlaskaImages that were kept secret under President Bush have just been declassified by the Obama administration. These images reveal what scientists have predicted: “In recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months.” The Guardian reports:

The pictures, kept secret by Washington during the presidency of George W Bush, were declassified by the White House last week. President Barack Obama is currently trying to galvanise Congress and the American public to take action to halt catastrophic climate change caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

One particularly striking set of images – selected from the 1,000 photographs released – includes views of the Alaskan port of Barrow. One, taken in July 2006, shows sea ice still nestling close to the shore. A second image shows that by the following July the coastal waters were entirely ice-free.

The spy satellite images provide indisputable evidence that the United States needs to take the lead in mitigating the effects of climate change.  Of particular concern is that America’s aging satellites cannot provide the data needed to maintain the “continuity of climate observations”.   There is also concern that the United States will not adequately fund climate monitoring.

Why would Bush hide these images showing the devasting effects in Barrow?  I suspect it was to keep the American public in the dark about the realities of climate change that may distract from his oil war mongering agenda.  Hopefully the newly released images will be the catalyst the American public and Congress need to take real steps towards solving the problem and not succumb to the coal lobby’s attempt to water down the current climate change bill.

About the Author

Jennifer lives on 160 acres off-the-grid in a home built with her own two hands (and several more skilled pairs of hands) from forest fire salvaged timber. Her home is powered by a micro-hydro turbine, and she has been a vegetarian for 21 years. Jennifer graduated from Humboldt State University with a degree in art education and has been teaching art to children for over 16 years. She also spent five years teaching in a one-room schoolhouse before becoming the mother of two beautiful children. Jennifer has a Master's Degree in Early Childhood Education and is currently teaching preschool, as well as k-8 art. She enjoys writing, gardening, hiking, practicing yoga, and raising four akitas. Jennifer is the founder and editor of Eco Child's Play (http://ecochildsplay.com) "I’ve always been concerned about the earth and our impact upon it. Now that I have children, I feel compelled to raise them with green values. From organic gardening to alternative energy, my family tries to leave a small carbon footprint." Please visit my other blog: http://reallynatural.com


  • the pictures are fake. If you go to google earth you can see photos from the same time frame of each year. The photos are from digital globe. The ice is not present in 2004, 5, 6 or 7.

    If you know something about the satellite systems, you know you can check the facts. Someone altered these photos. Maybe Mr. Obamas folks.

    False science rules again. Did Mr. Gore change these photos?

  • James, the measurable data on climate change is actually pretty trivially easy to find if you use this magical tool called “Google.” I hate to be acerbic about this, but while a lot of climate science is actually much more complicated than its critics imagine it to be, finding summaries of the results just… isn’t… difficult.

    And with all respect, the temperature changes on other planets in our solar system don’t tell us anything about what to expect on our planet. I’m not even sure where that idea got started, but for goodness’ sake, just think about it: the orbits are different (both in terms of distance from the sun and eccentricity), the planet tilts are different, and the atmospheric compositions–what the bulk argument relating to “climate change” is over, as you might recall–are completely different.

    Having said all that, comparing satellite photographs between two years makes a really great visual, but it doesn’t tell us anything about long-term trends — and long-term trends are the whole point. Climate change skeptics get rightly dinged for doing things like picking two years and saying “2008 was the coolest year on record since 1999! Global warming is thus disproved!” No, it isn’t, kids. If you pick any two years and draw a straight line between them, you can make it look like we’re all going to be freezing or boiling in 30 years depending on which two years you pick. That just ain’t the way trends work. Well, y’know what? You can’t prove global warming that way, either. Bad science is bad science no matter what point it’s trotted out in favor of.

    As I said, it’s not too hard to go to Google to find charts of, y’know, actual long-term trends:


    And there’s enough there to argue about. Different scientists come up with different plots. Modeling this stuff is complicated. But even in that chart, you can see that, yeah, they really _are_ taking into account solar radiative forcing. Something that I’ve noticed skeptics of all kinds seem to have trouble believing is that scientists by and large are not stupid people, and the chances are very, very, _very_ low that you, as a layman, even a very well-informed layman, are in fact _not_ seeing something in an afternoon that dozens of scientists studying a given subject for years — the same scientists who published the very chart you think you’ve found something new in — somehow missed. (This same logic also casts serious doubt on accusations of scientific fraud and coverup.)

  • All politics, no science. Questions of the day. #1 What is the measurable data on temperature change? What is being measured, where and for how long? #2 What are the temperature changes on other planets in our solar system? Compare and contrast. What could this say about causes.

  • This is lame… One year of difference does not make a trend. The change in the image is stark, but note that the 2008-2009 winter had the fastest accumulation of ice in recorded history. A fact that conservatives use to say that there is no climate change. Neither assertion is good science.

Comments are closed.