Thinking is essentially the recollection of memories and hence forecasting is the extrapolation of those memories, and hence thought, in both direct and indirect forms, into the future.
Hence the future, as thought, is always and axiomatically, the past; without exception.
So, as a runaway greenhouse effect has never been observed happening anywhere, it can therefore never be considered a physical phenomena in the here and now requiring the framing of a theory, or belief, and hence a thought pattern, to explain it.
And we have not actually observed a greenhouse effect occurring on Venus, but merely have conjectured that it must have happened, as a consequence of Venusian atmospheric chemistry that is composed of 90% CO2, in order to explain Venus’ anomalous thermal state, or temperature, as measured, in order to counter Velikovsky’s interpretation that Venus had to be hot because it was a recently formed planet.
So how do we as humans deal with physical novelty?
If we deny the novelty by comparing it’s characteristics with what we know, then we are being religious.
And if we are prepared to change our knowledge under the light of novelty, then we are being scientific.
And this dichotomy introduces a conundrum, that we can only recognise a scientific manner of thinking because of its opposite, the observation or manner of religious thinking; one cannot exist without the other, and it’s that contradiction that seems to be the problem.