The problem is that there are all kinds of inorganic deposits that look a lot like fossil bacteria. Differentiating between them is very, very difficult. The standards are pretty high for declaring things to be ancient microbial fossils from Earth, and even then there are mistakes and debates. The standard for something from Mars has got to be even higher, and when all you have is an oblong shape that is very, very small, well, it's not very strong evidence.

DNA breaks down pretty quickly, in geologic time. The will not find intact strings of DNA in ALH84001, period, and actually looking for living organisms on Mars is going to be very difficult.

Also, if we some day find microorganisms on Mars that share the genetic code of Earth's life, that doesn't prove it's not native Mars live; panspermia and selection both could reasonably explain it. Finding a different code, however, would be excellent evidence for unique origin or long, indpendent evolutionary history.

I think the OP overplayed his hand, but since dragonflies are a pest species, then primary research into their diversity and behavior can let us make useful predictions about their behavior, potential risks to human endeavors, and evolutionary trajectory.

So, while the OP is wrong, you're just as wrong.

Sure, what you'd learn is that a scientist's best bet to get a lot of money is to come up with revolutionary evidence that the AGW theory is incorrect; and the denier's best bet to get a lot of money is to start a consulting company and get giant grants from oil companies to sling dirt at the scientists.

If the scientists did have evidence to show that AGW is wrong, they'd publish it and get famous. Think Nobel. Think front page of every news magazine and giant speaking appointments. The reason this hasn't happened yet is that the evidence isn't there. I'm not saying that the theory is correct, but the evidence that has been collected is pretty one sided.

Currently, the material in scientific journals is dominated by scientists who support AGW, because their money is spent on doing science. The sphere of public opinion is dominated by deniers, because that's where they spend their money.

Just take a moment, and actually consider that the scientists might be more right than wrong. You might learn something.

So, correlation does not imply causation.

But, that's not what is happening here. The systems of genetic transfer and mutation are very well understood. There are extremely robust models that explain this exact process and how to detect that have withstood the test of time.

For an example, here's one from wikipedia:

B causes A (reverse causation)

The more firemen fighting a fire, the bigger the fire is going to be. Therefore firemen cause fire.

The above example is simple and easy to understand. The strong correlation between the number of firemen at a scene and the size of the fire that is present does not imply that the firemen cause the fire. Firemen are sent according to the severity of the fire and if there is a large fire, a greater number of firemen are sent; therefore it is rather that fire causes firemen to arrive at the scene.

In that example, the absurdity is that we know that larger fires are responded to by firemen, and more come when there is a fire. You're arguing that unless we actually saw the fire growing THIS time, we can only say there is correlation. That's stupid. We have a model of fire growth and fireman response then has been developed through empirical observation. We have a model of evolutionary change and of horizontal gene transfer that has been tested and validated through many, many studies. You need to present an alternative that is more likely in order to explain this away, not just wave your hands, close your eyes, and go "Nyah nyah nyah!"

The Holocene mass extinction is actually well documented, with rates estimated at 100x background. While it hasn't reached the levels of say, the End Permian extinction, this one isn't over yet. While the OP's statement is a bit strong--- it's closer to reality then what you offered.

A half dozen emails in 10 years of correspondence is frequent?

Sure, AGW can be falsified.

Here are some ways, just off the top of my head:

1. Show that combustion of coal, gas, andother fossil fuels does not emit carbon dioxide.

2. Show that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not changed due to the release of human combustion; one way this could happen would be some uptake mechanism kicking in.

3. Show that carbon dioxide's absorption spectrum is such that is does not absorb shortwave infrared radiation, or is not transparent to longer wave radiation.

4. Show that the heat that ends up trapped at the Earth's surface escapes in some other manner that is proportional to the increase in temperature.

Okay, get at it! Good luck!

Mind you, the interactions in the extremely complex weather system you mention are tougher to deal with, but they're a result of people trying to figure out what the effects of warming will be; not an effort to measure the warming itself, and thus not necessary to address your one question.

PS- Phil Jones said there was no statistically significant warming; and any time series with as much noise as global temperature measurement and only 15 measurements since 1995 will be impossible to find a statistically significant (p.05) change. Of course, we have a lot more data then that, and we do have statistical significance in longer time series.

Sure, any model is just that, a model.

But one model that we can have a good deal of confidence in is the very simple one of how CO2 reacts to various electromagnetic wavelengths. Simple experiments, you can even do them yourself at home.

Take that data, add the information on what em radiation leaves Earth's surface, and you can make some pretty straightforward predictions about how it affects net energy flux. This has been known for a long time. No reasonable evidence refutes it. Modeling the total energy flux in and out of the Earth isn't that complicated.

The climate models have come along since then, and are obviously dealing with the details of the much more complicated system-- exactly where in the system is the energy going to pool? Yes, a tougher problem, but still predicated on basics that aren't that tough.

Still though, this is a vindication for science.

First off, in hundreds of pages, this is the first major error that's been found. That's not a bad record, and considering the political will to find errors, and the amount of scrutiny the IPCC reports receive, that's pretty good.

Second, we can judge the strength of the rest of the IPCC's work by examining how they responded to a legitimate error: they accepted it, and corrected it. We now have evidence that they are willing to make changes that improve the quality of their work. Any work the size and complexity of the IPCC report is going to have errors. The real question is how they're dealt with when they're found.