Not long ago I felt provoked into a burst of self-promotion. Someone on the climate rationalist side of the argument running me down, in an oh so friendly way, in front of someone from the fraud side of the debate:
I was the first person to suggest that the fact that water was more viscous when cold helped explain the step-fashion nature of cooling and warming on a multi-decadal basis. I was the first person I can find who hypothesized a direct relationship between the resistance-to-circulation of the currents, and the equilibrium heat content of the globe ((((holding energy input constant)))) via Stefan-Boltzmanns law.
Others have mentioned this but not before me as far as I know. And I plugged this concept all over the place
In philosophy I was the first person I know of to articulate that only convergent evidence gave us rightful certitude and not deductive exactitude or anything else. I know that everyone with any commonsense already acts like they know this but its a serious philosophical point.
I was the first person to make the heater-in-the basement versus the heater-in-the attic analogy to show that not all DELTA-JOULES are equal. And that therefore the INCOMING Joules that the CO2 was absorbing or scattering (ie the joules that extra-CO2 negated from the lower atmosphere) may well be more important than the theoretical extra joules through back-radiation.
I was the first person to bring marginalist thinking to the problem and showed why we have to assume that the effect of the CO2 will be less than if we were in an aggregated and averaged environment as in the models.