The first paper to suggest CO2 can cause global warming was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 [edit: oops, apparently it wasn’t the first, although it is said to be the first paper to articulate some other important elements of modern climate science, such as the importance of the energy balance in the upper atmosphere]. Climatology is a very old field, but most of the important science on GHGs and warming came well after 1896.
I’ve been talking a lot to ‘skeptics’ recently myself…
What I learned, and why you should drop your objections about global warmingmedium.com
Focusing on risk and reward as this article does makes tons of sense, and might well sway the public even if it has no effect on hardcore deniers.
It’s also worth noting that there are far more solutions to global warming than people commonly discuss:
A chat with Paul Hawken about his ambitious new effort to "map, measure, and model" global warming solutions.www.vox.com
It’s been argued that we’ve handled this all wrong by setting worldwide emissions targets and focusing narrowly on global warming and CO2. It probably would have been much better if, instead of having omnibus accords like Kyoto and Paris, we had numerous smaller summits, each focusing on specific goals and topics like solar energy development, nuclear SMR/LFTR development, protecting/regrowing forests, increasing albedo of new construction, CO2 sequestration & tax policy, and even “refrigerant management” and “educating girls” (see the list).
Smaller summits would have attracted more people dedicated to those specific issues, and allowed us to focus more on rewards of mitigation and less on costs.