We have known about CO2 related climate change for over 100 years.

[roamer65]

Popular Mechanics article from 1912. Right dead on then and now.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=this+tends+to+make+the+air+a+more+effective+blanket+for+the+earth&source=bl&ots=QvdH-SgFLl&sig=WiPUNOIzM6udOSTBm2VXzRQB9K8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQq8apj_bPAhUa3YMKHfCZDLQQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Hugh_Lebowski]

1. True, but there's no alarmism in that article, in fact in the end it seems fairly 'pro-coal'

Their angle seems to be that burning it now is going to produce the net effect of men in the future being able to enjoy milder breezes and sunnier skies. Like, yippee!

It talks about 'atmospheric change' being caused (in future centuries) via the burning of coal, but there's no real warning that this could be 'negative'. Rather it's presented as neutral at worst and beneficial at best.

The point is taken re: the mechanism insofar as 'it's been known' for a REALLY long time.

But the possible horribly deleterious effects of that mechanism were not elucidated and *publicized* until the 1970's at earliest, AFA I recall.

[Emrys]

2. The alarm bells about climate change were ringing long before the 1970s.

The syndrome we now know as the greenhouse effect was first posited in the early 1820s.

By at the latest the late 1950s, its cumulative effects on climate were spurring grave warnings from various scientific quarters.

By the late 1970s, right enough, the warnings were growing shriller and shriller.

Of course, then the oil industry lobbyists found receptive ears in the US government under Reagan and the Bushes, after which the science has consistently been "debatable".