Oh goody, yet another myth from Renato... the 1970s cooling myth. Dammit, I can't resist responding one last time. Heck, there's even a research paper dedicated to scotching that myth!
Peterson et al 2008, published in
BAMS, explores that one.
A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.
The summary above is from
the appropriate Skeptical Science page, and you can read the original paper linked above if you have the stomach, Renato. You've been through a good half dozen myths already, I dread to think how many more of
the 176 skeptical arguments, you're going to bring up in the mistaken thought that they support your case.
By the end of the 1970s
the Charney Report (1979) was published, and there has been little real scientific doubt about the basics since then. Just read the foreword! Many details, of course, had to be worked out, and of course the main thrust of recent warming hadn't yet happened!
What is it with some engineers, who think that they can waltz into a subject about which they know virtually nothing, and pronounce the entire field not only wrong, but the grandest conspiracy in the history of mankind? If you asked 100 climate scientists whether a damaged bridge was structurally sound and 50 said yes and 50 said no, you'd rightly conclude that
they didn't understand the topic. I don't go to engineers get my teeth checked, I don't ask engineers if the mole on my shoulder is cancer or not, but apparently I'm supposed to ask an engineer if climate science is right?
While we're on the topic of the 97%, there are at least three previous surveys that all come to the basically same conclusion as Cook et al 2013 - you have
Oreskes 2004,
Doran and Zimmerman 2009, and
Anderegg et al 2010. Strangely the skeptics never seem to do any surveys of their own, scotching this one... they are just content to snipe from the sidelines on blogs. But then the 3% don't agree with each other!! They haven't come up with any coherent alternate explanations either to explain the increasing ocean heat content (e.g. Levitus 2012), the spectral changes at the top of the atmosphere (e.g. Harries 2001), the concept of signal and noise in climate (e.g. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) and all the myriad other consilient lines of evidence that they are unwilling to accept.
But I'm sure Renato will find plenty of reasons to dismiss these as everything else just as in el_draco's example below. And that refusal to engage with evidence is why it's not worth the discussion.