The NASA paper does not say that Sandy was not influenced by climate change. What they actually calculate is that Sandy-like hurricanes occur once in 700 years under pre-industrial conditions. Here is one of many relevant quotes:

The fact that our calculations show Sandy’s track to be so rare under long-term average climate conditions lends support to a climate-change influence. On the other hand, the most recent climate model simulations project reductions in blocking frequency in a warmer climate [Dunn-Sigouin and Son, 2012]. Global high-resolution models suggest that tropical cyclone frequency will decrease globally, while mean intensity will increase. There is growing consensus that the most intense events will increase in frequency, but there is high uncertainty, especially in individual basins [Knutson et al., 2010]. On the other hand, further sea level rise is almost certain, with a meter or more expected in the next century [Nicholls and Cazenave, 2010]. This will exacerbate TC-induced flooding even if the storms themselves do not change.

Someone should have RTFA.

Interestingly, the Fibonacci sequence is also in the limit an exponential series. As the numbers increase, the ratio between two adjacent number in the sequence converges on the golden ratio.

Nearly. I think the canonical form for this name would be:

Phone call for C. Cocks. I wanna C Cocks? Anyone?

OK, so people are trying to argue that this paper supports one view or another in a trivial manner. I don't think it's that simple.

I can't even being to interpret what this means without a lot more reading. I'm not even sure I know all the questions that need to be asked. But here's a couple which occur to me immediately...

1. This is a new method of measuring ice loss, and from what I can tell is rather hard to interpret given the interacting phenomena. There are long established methods which are far simpler - most obviously measuring the speed of ice flow. Does this new paper bring ice loss estimates into line with estimates from traditional methods, or does it contradict the estimates from traditional methods?

2. Even ignoring that question, ice loss contributes to sea level rise, which is also being observed. If less sea level rise can be attributed to ice loss, does that therefore mean that more must be attributed to thermal expansion, thus increasing estimates the rate at which the earth is absorbing and storing energy? (I think the answer to this one is that the ice-loss contribution is minimal and so the change is also minimal, but it needs checking.)

The 369 signatories (377 now) are all MEPs (members of the European Parliament). 369 is significant because it is a majority of the eligible votes.

The linked page is just one of the relevant pages - you have to follow the links on the left to get at the rest. Here's a couple of interesting pages:
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Written_Declaration_12/2010_signatories_list
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA

It's not clear to me if they've even got a way of releasing the energy (is the compressed form stable?). If they have, then you're going to have to generate electricity from the mechanical expansion of a solid. The most obvious way we achieve that currently is a coiled spring, which probably won't work in this case.

As the article says, this is basic science.

Uh, you realise that there have been philosophers of science since Popper, don't you? Kuhn and Feyerbrand for example. O'Hear has a good overview from Bacon to the current day.

I think that one of the world's top evolutionary biologists, Steven Jay Gould, might disagree with you there.

Ah, think what Bacon, Kepler, Linnaeus, Faraday, Babbage, Maxwell, Kelvin, or Plank might have achieved had they not put their brains in the trash!

In Portugal I saw a cute system - if you pass a sensor driving faster than the speed limit, then a traffic signal 200yards/metres down the road turns red for 10 seconds, making you (and again anyone behind you) stop.

The psychology behind these systems is interesting - both rely on shaming you in front of other drivers. The Portugese system goes further and makes other drivers angry with you for speeding.