It’s actually even worse than that.
The one climate researcher om question wrote a sentence about cooling that involved a comma followed by a dependent clause. The dependent clause explained that the cooling effect was expected to have an impact over a period of time on the order of 10,000 years – so not strictly relevant to the AGW debate, which pertains to the next few decades or centuries.
That sentence was followed by several hundred words of nuanced discussion regarding the fact that, due to recent evidence of warming due to the greenhouse effect, it seems likely that this long-term cooling may (or may not!) be counteracted over the coming decades.
The “scientists in the 70’s predicted cooling” thing gets its textual evidence by literally cutting off that first sentence at the comma and completely ignoring everything the study said about the possibility of greenhouse gas-based forcing overwhelming the relatively weak cooling signal discussed in the study.
See section 8 in the study in the following link for details.
https://www.ualberta.ca/~eec/Site/Links_files/globalcooling.pdf
