“We’re starting to find a browning of the tundra in the last few years,” [Epstein] said. “The progression of growth may be reversing. We’re not sure yet why, but it’s clear that vegetation dynamics are more complex across tundra than previously thought. We still have a lot of work to do to understand Arctic changes and how this affects and is affected by changes to the global climate.”
Also, there's this strange statement:
As the shrubbery increases its distribution, it creates its own warming effect by absorbing heat, rather than reflecting heat as snow does, leading to additional warming and perpetuating the effect.
What am I supposed to take away from this? Start a campaign for tundra deforestation? That can't be right. It must be that more research is needed.
ETA:
Well, from the replies, it looks like I communicated my point poorly. I wasn't arguing the merits of the case for (or against) AGW, rather I was saying these researchers are really stretching it, it my opinion. They don't have much more (at least as reported here) than "look, these pictures show very different vegetation patterns", and from there we (they) need more research (dollars). I think this is just an academic form of a submarine article: VERY preliminary speculation reported as news by a university with a vested interest in securing funding.