The picked up on a single article and re-printed. Even Exxon was cautioning about human generated warming in the 70s.

Changing your story and not answering the question. Where were you in the 1960’s and 1970’s? I don’t recall hearing one story on global warming, but there was a great deal of alarmism over global cooling until probably the late 1970’s. When I was in school there was absolutely no mention of global warming but a coming ice age was predicted.
Exxon’s studies were into the climate change effects (not necessarily global warming), and weren’t really initiated until 1978.
The following is pretty much in line with my memory-
“ A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

A non-scientific analysis of a scientific review of published a peer reviewed publications. Complete with a conspiracy that things were being deleted.

And then the guy who started the hysteria.

https://slate.com/technology/2014/12/1975-newsweek-article-on-global-cooling-how-climate-change-deniers-use-my-old-piece.html

In the 60s or 70a they also though asbestos, DTD, and Agent Orange were good ideas. Why are we bringing half a century old “science” (I.e. a few overhyped magazine articles because the U.S. had three bad winters in a row) into this discussion?

Your article does not refute the claim that there was hysteria about global cooling in the 1960’s and 70’s.
If the article I listed has false numbers please list them and the specific articles that he lists incorrectly. He makes it pretty easy to do so as he actually lists articles.

Actually, flying isn't inefficient by any stretch. The infamous 737 Maxes are getting 116 MPG per seat, and even the most inefficient modern aircraft get better MPGs than a Prius.

Here's a complete list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

And if you don't believe in Wikipedia, just pay attention to the fuel burns on your next flights.

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.

Because it is to the point that sometimes science is wrong.
Also, it’s not that people thought DDT, Agent Orange and asbestos were great ideas, they just viewed their negatives outweighed by their positives. As for DDT, it could still be argued that the elimination of misquote born diseases such as malaria from the US far outweighed it’s negatives. Malaria was very common in the US especially in the south to include the DC area until widespread use of DDT effectively eliminated it. Then affluent white people no longer needed to worry about dying white kids so DDT was banned essentially sentencing millions of African and Asian kids to death.
Recent science has been wrong about salt intake, fat, genetic differences in races... one only needs to use Google to find many cases where science was wrong.
But the problem is that there are many questions about climate change and the science (which I might add is relatively new), and anyone who asks these questions is immediately labeled a “denier” or anti science. Ironically, the same people who lecture us about climate science then do a 180 when it comes to gender.
First, I don’t deny the existence of climate change. I grew up on an island created by glaciers.
Second, the question I and many others have is how much of an effect is actually man made and how much would naturally occur. Of the man made effect, is it bad or good? What is the “normal” we seek? Do we wish to return to days of glaciers covering half of North America? Something less than that? Some of the mini ice ages over the past several hundred years that caused world wide famine and death?
How best to achieve those goals? Personally, I believe in Maslov’s Hierarchy of human needs. The more wealth we create through free markets the more people can care about pollution. Some of the world’s worst pollution offenders are “third world” countries where people are more concerned about meeting their daily needs than pollution. Just fly into India and China and you will see it first hand. The Soviet Block was a notorious polluter.
What will the human cost be in achieving these goals versus not doing so? Again, often we hear the negative of climate change, but are longer growing seasons for crops a bad thing? Longer and harsher winters a good thing? What are normal glacier levels? Should they be static? Retreating? Advancing?
Much of the hysteria around climate change such as the kind that initiated this thread has little to do with finding ways to reduce pollution through free markets and everything to do with bringing about statism either through democratic means or, should that fail, through violent revolution.

1978. Late 1970’s.
And that’s the point. Science does sometimes change and often has in the past. Climate study itself is a relatively new science. Yet any one who has questions about it is a “science denier” or a “climate change denier”, neither of which is true.

When I was getting an engineering degree in 2008 I had a required class called "Engineering Earth" where our professor talked about this a lot. According to him, when he worked in industry he was involved with a project where they found a cost-effective way to sequester CO2 in the early 90s. He said the biggest adversary to the tech was the Soviet Union/Russia because rising global temperatures meant that they could finally gain access to natural resources in Siberia and the Arctic Ocean. It would also shift the "bread-basket" region into an area more favorable for them.

Personally, I think the evidence for climate change is pretty resounding. There are just too many independent studies analyzing different aspects (satellite imagery, global CO2 ppm, global temperature readings, core samples, etc) that all reach the same conclusion. My fiance is a scientist (unrelated to atmospheric science) and I've seen what goes into getting published and peer reviewed, so the theory that all the scientists could even push an agenda is baffling to anyone who understands the process because there're just too many controls and checks and balances to ensure the entire community polices itself. I'm really not surprised that scientists denying climate change are being excommunicated. I mean, Phillip Morris had no problem finding some sell-out who'd claim cigarettes weren't bad for you well into the 2000s, but if you're gonna listen to the 1% of scientists who said cigarettes weren't bad for you it's your fault for getting cancer. With climate change every big industry leader from energy, utilities, auto, construction, agriculture, aviation (I'll admit it), etc would love a sell-out, so how do you think the community would react to them?

Things like the Green New Deal were the worst thing to ever happen to climate change action, because it was nothing but a socialist Trojan Horse that caused everyone whose not far left to circle the wagons. I think the Right needs to get on board and instead of just pretending the issue doesn't exist, find a palatable solution, like nuclear and solar. And not those stupid solar farms. Ever see how many solar panels it takes to generate 100% of a house's electric need? It's not much. They also have an ROI of about 15 years without subsidies and a useful life of 30 years. If it became standard that everyone's southern roof was a solar roof, most people got electric cars for local commuting, and we replaced existing coal with nuclear, preferably in places not prone to Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis (sorry California and Japan), that'd pretty much solve our crisis. Instead it turned into this BS politicized issue where we have to choose between becoming socialists who can never afford a big house, our own car, or red meat ever again, and the other side, which just pretends the problem doesn't exist.