Holmes, I get the feeling you've moved into one of your strident phases. If so, fine but just tell us so we can ignore you.
Well this is where we are being realistic, right? Take a look at actual statements by proponents of GW, and the original models (some still clung to) espoused.
What does that have to do with anything I said?
Remember Venus is one of prime examples used. It was practically the genesis of modern GW theory and often our explorations there are now extolled as being the way we first understood the possibilities of GW.
Please point to where I brought Venus up.
Crichton also addressed the shift now taking place in environmental circles. It started with "ICE AGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to "GLOBAL WARMING! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!" to more recently "DRAMATIC (or ABRUPT) CLIMATE CHANGE! DO SOMETHING! PEOPLE BAD!"
Please point to where I said PEOPLE BAD!
If it GW isn't really the issue any more then let's be honest and chuck it and say it is the possibility of more shifting and variability. Is that good or bad? Let's work on the science.
Let's work to minimize the harmful effects.
Furthermore, if Ice is growing (that would be an ice age) that suggests a shift in where the ice is, but not necessarily a difference in total ice like a typical ice age.
Again, I have the feeling that you just plain missed the point. If ice covers where you are it's an Ice Age.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion