The "coming ice age" was a creation of Newsweek. There was some scientific speculation about whether cooling from particulates would offset CO2-induced warming.

The "coming ice age" was a creation of Newsweek. There was some scientific speculation about whether cooling from particulates would offset CO2-induced warming. Theories of climate change were first proposed in the early 19th Century, in order to explain the evidence for Ice Ages. The first theory of CO2-induced climate change (Arrhenius 1896) was actually discussing that. Global warming describes a subset of recent climate change. Note the date above. AGW is older and better-established than Relativity. It's a relatively straightforward consequence of the heat physics of gases, which was first worked out in the 1860s, and can be trivially replicated in your basement. It was also, as it happens, completely disproved for about fifty years, and the overturning of its disproofs was notable for none of the political infighting surrounding the issue today. The skeptic might wonder what the difference is, and why the people complaining of bad science don't have better science to present. We've only been studying the issue for a dozen decades or so, and surely the previous disproofs would be a start? P.S. That you can create a semantic link between the concepts of "holocaust denier" and "AGW denier" does not mean that those two things are commonly treated as being morally equivalent: non sequitur.