America centric? Arrhenius and Tyndale? Do you think that the website is inventing the research papers being discussed? What about the scientific evidence, are the properties of H2O and CO2 also somehow "America centric"?
Arrhenius' paper was well-received, but it did contradict existing assumptions that the Earth was generally static or cyclical. Plate tectonics would not be widely accepted until the 1950s. The concept of ice ages had become mainstream only in the 1870s. In point of fact, Arrhenius was writing about CO2 in relation to his interest in the origin of ice ages. That it suggested anthropogenic warming was possible was incidental. Researchers in the early 20th Century had made measurements which suggested that additional CO2 would not have an effect on the Earth's climate. The theory was widely discredited on that basis, even though Arrhenius' equations and calculations seemed to be sound. Other lines of evidence spoke against the idea of a static Earth, and CO2's indisputably also key role in atmospheric warming spurred scientists to attempt to measure global concentrations of CO2 in the 1950s, culminating with the work of Keeling in 1960.
AGW was neither always controversial nor always accepted. Like most scientific ideas it had to gain acceptance, and as always, our theories about the universe improve with better data. The nice thing about the history of science is that it is objective: there are either published papers and observations or there are not. If AGW was as well established in the early 20th Century as you say, then you should have a plethora of evidence. So let's take a quick trip to Google scholar, and start searching for anything climate related that happens to turn up, and see what it says.
Civilization and Climate, 1922
"...there is a widespread idea that climatic uniformity is the normal condition..."
"As to the assumed uniformity of climate, meteorologists do indeed find that so far as records are yet available...there are no certain indications of progressive climatic changes."
An Introduction To Weather And Climate, 1943
"Water vapor is much the most important of the atmosphere's absorbing gases, although carbon dioxide and ozone are of minor importance."
"Very insignificant amounts of both solar energy and terrestrial energy are likewise absorbed by ozone, oxygen, and carbon dioxide."
Climate and evolution, 1915 seems to take the view that climatic changes are exclusively due to the shape and position of the continents, and that the shape and position of the continents is mostly due to erosion, not continental drift.
Ah, here's a good one. G. S. Callendar, 1949 "CAN CARBON DIOXIDE INFLUENCE CLIMATE?" You will also find Callendar's work highlighted in the AIP "Discovery of Global Warming" website I linked earlier, and I believe this article in particular is mentioned.
An interpretation of climatic change in terms of the variable carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was first proposed some sixty years ago by the famous Swedish physicist, Sevante Arrhenius, who made some of the classic experiments on the absorption of heat radiation by gases. Since then the theory has had a chequered history; it was abandoned for many years when the preponderating influence of water vapour radiation in the lower atmosphere was first discovered, but was revived again a few years ago when more accurate measurements of the water vapour spectrum became available.
Point, set, match. Most of the references I read made no mention of climate change as a current phenomenon, setting forth the properties of various climates as though they were graven in stone. Those that did treat upon climate change referred mainly to ice ages and glaciation, and with the exception of Arrhenius and Callendar they all ascribed climate change to other factors. The climate textbook I cited did not include any information about climate change, although it did have this little gem:
"...weather science today is in a remarkable state of flux. Particularly as a result of the more complete analysis of the upper air, old notions and explanations of atmospheric phenomena are undergoing rapid change and modification."
This thing you're doing where you're denying objective facts which you could trivially confirm, and only reading enough of what is presented to confirm your biases, is rather rude. You have presented no evidence for the correctness of your perspective nor any criticism of mine. "You're wrong, because America" is simply not an argument, and again, the deliberate ignorance you are displaying is appalling. As it happens, you are also wrong, and in support of that I view the quotation from Callendar as entirely conclusive.