No, I'm not, because, according to your point of view, even in this case is not NASA, but five random NASA guys (mainly from the Radar dept.) saying that "[Larsen B] will likely disintegrate completely in the next few years" and that "Larsen B will eventually break it apart completely, probably around the year 2020", so OP is right: NASA guys were wrong before, so NASA guys could be wrong again.

And by the way, that one NASA climate scientist is NASA's Chief Cryosphere Scientist.

It is quite important since it is not going to happen: Mount Kilimanjaro glaciers nowhere near extinction

Alarmed by the Prof. Thompson study, way back in 2006, Tanzania President Jakaya Kikwete imposed a total ban on tree harvesting in Kilimanjaro region in a move aimed to halt catastrophic environmental degradation, including melting of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro.

As a result of the measures, the forest cover on the mount Kilimanjaro is slowly, but surely becoming thick.

Experts say the forests on Kilimanjaro's lower slopes absorb moisture from the cloud hovering near the peak, and in turn nourish flora and fauna below

Oh rly?

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years? (National Geographic - 2007)

after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 (The Guardian)

US Department of Energy-backed research project led by a US Navy scientist predicts that the Arctic could lose its summer sea ice cover as early as 2016 - 84 years ahead of conventional model projections.

That's like saying that France and French Republic are synonyms and that France is the entire country (including French Guyana, Polynesia, St. Pierre etc.), while the European part of it is called European France.

Historically Russia is the land of the Russi (in latin, Rus' in slavic ), this led to the creation of a number of Russias (e.g. Belarus, which means White Russia) and to the fact that the Czar was called the "Emperor of all Russias" during the Russian Empire. For a long time, during the empire, there was a border between Russia and Siberia and it was only in the late XIX century that Siberia became fully integrated with Russia proper (before it was just a kind of colony).

The fact that Russians may be interested in calling all the Russian territory as "land of the Russians" (the meaning of Russia) is a different issue.

Russia is in Europe: Russia is the European part of the Russian Federation, the Asian part is called Siberia.

Yeah, but what is their impact on climate in numbers? What is the the end result of the sum of greenhouse gasses emission, global dimming, deforestation etc.? You cannot just say X causes Y therefore if we eliminate X we avoid the Y result, that is totally wrong and there are a lot of cases where a poor comprehension or an oversimplification of a system has caused unwanted consequences, i.e. the mesopredator release hypothesis.

1. We commonly say that a theory has been "proved" when all its predictions have been verified. It can be disproved again later, but that is another problem.
2. The two body problem is itself an idealization, not to say that even the pendulum model or every other simple model of classical mechanics is exact in the same sense. However, a sufficiently exact model must not diverge from the observations; in this case models tend to diverge or to not converge after they are perturbed by noise, discrepancies etc. This is a symptom of not good enough, i.e. wrong, models.
3. Using the word deniers is a way to demonize who dissent, for every reason, and hamper further discussions. Usually, progress is the result of a discussion between different point of views, not the result of blind adherence to a creed.

You can use wrong prediction as well, to further develop. That doesn't mean they are less wrong.

I prefer: "everyone who disagrees with scientific evidence is not sensible". Believing in human made global warning is a right, saying it is probable, given its actual scientific evidence, is a lie. :p

Sorry, but this is complete bullshit. The fact that temperature increased on average in the last decades doesn't tell us anything about future temperatures, from a system theory stand-point. The model must adhere to the observed system for a long period of time (and climate periods last millennia) otherwise it is practically certain that in the long run they diverge enough to render the model useless. And nowadays, the divergence between climate models and climate is very large after just a decade or two.

I don't know what you're trying to say. As far as I know Englert and Higgs won the Nobel after their theories were proved, not before. Unless you, in your basement, proved human made global warming last night, we are still in the unproven phase for the latter.

And here I thought that climate != weather. It seems it only works the other way around.

Besides that, an inaccurate scientific prediction is wrong by definition, i.e. it cannot be used to prove anything.

The problem is that practically all the climate models used so far are wrong. From a scientific viewpoint it is just an unproven theory, because its predictions are either not proven (because we're waiting the results) or proven wrong.

There's a fine line between:

• Climate change: this is a well known phenomenon, from ice ages to the end of dinosaurs is nothing new
• Global warming: this is less known, the period between ice ages lasts millennia, our sampling of global warming a few decades
• Human-made global warming: every sensible man should consider this a wild speculation at the moment

The fact is that California harvest alfalfa up to 12 times a year, it sucks up a lot of water not because it is a particularly thirsty crop (it is not), but because farmers want very high yield. Cutting alfalfa would mean less returns for farmers, guaranteed.

Yes, "whateverism" is a good translation: that's as close as you can get, I guess.