In accordance with established rules, knowledge, principles or standards. I am assuming this is the definition you were looking for as it relates to the legitimacy of science. The ability to stand up to scrutiny as in peer review.

http://youtu.be/_Sf_UIQYc20

Your are correct... Science never claims to be perfect... In fact most statistical methods used in science run on a 95% probability margin to be considered sound science(that's not perfect). That being said as to the reasons for past ice ages... Well you are correct the jury is still out but some modelling being done by scientists has come up with a few ideas... Nothing proven to 95% yet. What has been proven is that for thousands of years the temperature of the planet has gone up and down in almost perfect unison with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. And don't try the volcano routine...
Humans excrete about 30 billions tonnes of CO2 a year... On a good year volcanoes emit 300 million (1%) of human emissions.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...
A primer by the union of concerned scientists.

Check this link... you mention the water crisis in India. The Himalayas provide water for one third of the planets population.
http://youtu.be/jXM3eMqQrwY
Merry Christmas... Sincerely

You are correct that there are much more acute issues to be dealt with on a humanitarian level such as the water issue. You should do a little research about the much more serious water issue coming to India.

Canada acknowledges opportunity costs. Making decisions on faulty or unproven theory is not prudent. If you are India and spend a billion on complying with Kyoto and those resources are taken away from -say-clean water-a much more immediate and dangerous issue in India due to environmentalist pressure, that would be a very bad decision. People die. That is immediate and important. Policy is government driven and racks up casualties.

I don't believe in science, I understand science. there is not a ton of empirical evidence. advocates of AGW have consistently lied, manipulated, the data. I do not trust their data because they have lied.
explain any ice age. a theory that cannot explain the most obvious facts, is not valid in science. science is not consensus.

Do you even believe in science or the tons of empirical evidence which exists?

Would you believe the USGS
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?...
Do you not believe because of your colder snowier than normal (record breaking) winter?
Our government in Canada rejects climate change because if they acknowledge it then they would have much more work to do justifying the Bituminous Sands (Not tar or oil) in Alberta

I'm at roughly at the 23.5 parallel and think progress is not a legitimate site. global warming advocates have consistently lied, manipulated data and that is a fact. Unless this article admits that, why would I trust anything it says? The boys who cried wolf.