"First, you're probably confusing this report with another one saying the venusian-style runaway greenhouse will take longer than expected."

Nope, I wasn't even thinking about venusian-style runaway greenhouse; I don't know anyone but crackpots who spend anytime considering that as a relevant issue.

"The general idea that we had .5 to 1G years before a runaway greenhouse would cook Earth has little relationship to the strong consensus on anthropogenic global warming. All the new study says (if correct) is that it will take longer."

I agree completely, except the part about what the "new study" says. The "new study" says that the idea that our magnetic field is protecting us from losing atmosphere is probably wrong and that the magnetic field may cause us to lose more atmosphere then if we had not had a magnetic field. The study doesn't really say anything about how long it will take.

"I'd say the relationship of this question to AGW is in the maturity of the science. The fate of the Earth over billions of years is something we understand right now to the same extent that evolution was understood in the 1870s - we know the concept, but a lot is poorly understood. Our understanding of AGW today is similar to late 20th century understanding of evolution, where we've spent several decades of sophisticated scientific analysis, field experimentation, and billions of dollars to figure things out."

True enough, and therefore we should rush to repeat something similar to the final solution- action based upon emotion and pseudo science.

But the only connection between AGW and this article is the word consensus.