On August 11 I wrote that the link between greenhouse gas emissions (specifically the burning of coal and oil) and global warming was accepted science as far back as 1967, when the Encyclopaedia Britannica published an article to that effect. What brought that to mind, though I didn't write about it, was a July 15 decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, holding that the Environmental Protection Agency acted within its authority when in 2003 it rejected a petition asking that the EPA regulate carbon exhaust from new cars and trucks. (I'm swiping my summary of the decision from a Los Angeles Times dispatch.) The two judges who voted to uphold the EPA said that (in the Times's words) "EPA officials had correctly decided not to regulate carbon dioxide based on their interpretation of the evidence at the time, asserting that the link between industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and global warming had not been unequivocally proven."
The Times also noted that the EPA rejected the petition after its attorneys concluded that Congress had not intended to give the EPA the power to deal with climate change. I don't know whether Congress intended to give the EPA the power to deal with global warming, but if anyone in the federal government has that power it's more likely the agency that has "Environmental Protection" in its name than it is anyone else.
Professor Young, who wrote the Encyclopaedia article, is likely long dead. (It would be ironic if he's been cremated.) But it's not likely that the article is the only thing he wrote on the subject; maybe the EPA would think differently if someone pointed out that the theory was already accepted science nearly 40 years ago.