You can't disprove a conspiracy... He uses a "database" of articles that were hand picked by a conspiracy theorist with a bachelor's in engineering, that has the sole intent is disproving climate change. The actual study he is refuting uses open source climate journal articles with no predisposition to proving or disproving. And he tries to justify his data selection by saying "even that other one has 16 (of the nearly 300 hand-picked "articles") in common. He also admits that he didn't bother to read any or all of them because it would be too hard so he has no idea what those papersb he is using are even saying. And in a completely "scientific" method, he admits that "almost all" of his hand-picked articles are peer reviewed. I bet he doesn't even know what that entails. Having even one non-peer reviewed article would invalidate his "study." This is the equivalent of a mom blogger telling all her followers that vaccinations are bad because she read some articles and then you using her blog as a serious rebuttal to established science. It's bad science and I'd argue not science at all.

And no one is saying that there wasn't published science about global cooling. But, because it's science, over time people have been able to disprove those hypotheses and assumptions. There was no global cooling consensus. Global cooling was always on the fringe of climate science. Even the energy companies private research pointed to CO2 emissions from burning their fuel as a potential problem... In the 70s.