[itcrowd]

Your specific example is cherry picked and does not reflect reality (even the reality of the seventies). Wikipedia's page on Schneider tells the full story:

"The story made headlines in The New York Times [note: this is your NYT article]. Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974."

[revelio]

If you're going to look for counter-evidence it's important first to accept just how blatant and widespread lying about climate is. Academics - assisted by the media - are willing to lie continuously, brazenly and effectively. They very much want to cover up these sorts of things and will do whatever it takes.

Consider the Wikipedia quote you just provided. You say it provides the full story. Please, think about the things you are reading.

It starts by admitting that in 1971 Schneider published a paper arguing for global cooling, but then claims he realized he made a maths error and by 1974 had published a retraction and accepted global warming. The NY Times article where he promotes his book on global cooling, and where the public is being told that he's representing The Scientific Consensus, was published in 1976. Two whole years after supposedly converting to global warming, there he is, asserting with complete confidence the reality of global cooling!

This claim about Schneider is a lie, like almost everything else about the history of climatology. Wikipedia even provides a citation for their claim of a retraction, but it isn't actually pointing to any retraction, it's to a book published by The Guardian in 2010.

Remember also that in the NY Times article it's stated as 100% fact that temperatures peaked in the 1940s and were falling ever since. That's not a mistake or distortion by the journalist. That's exactly what temperature graphs of the USA showed right up until around the start of the millennium. At that point the historical record was altered to remove this long period of cooling. If you look at modern temperature graphs that period of history shows a flat trend.