One of these was A.H. Johnson who was the first to
mention the possibility of a «societal view,» and thereby elicited an explicitly negative reaction from Whitehead.8 Others who entertain this view are, mainly, William Christian, Lewis Ford, Marjorie Suchocki, and Jorge Nobo.9 Amongst these, Ford is the only one who links his holding of the «entitative view» to an emphasis on the imprehensibility of God's consequent nature10 (and who later finds this so much of a
problem that he starts
searching in other directions, though not in that of the «societal view»).11 The other three — Christian, Suchocki, and Nobo — do see possibilities for a conceptually coherent account of the prehensibility of God.
On paleo data, I think the real
problem is two-fold: first of all, there is the flimsy and dicey nature of the proxy data being used and the tiny GH effect that's being read in, which you
mention, but then there is the more basic
problem that these studies have almost exclusively been «
searches for proof» (that «CO2 is the climate control knob», as Richard Alley puts it), rather than objective «
searches for the truth».