I'm not trying to get into the climate debate considering I'm totally cool with the idea of human influence on the climate but that article was actually written as poorly as it possibly could have been, especially since methodologically they explained that they were going to only test 3% of the sum of the papers, and only those with which they disagreed. Effectively they weren't proving their tool of critical analysis against the work they agreed. It was a propaganda article that's only going to play to confirmation bias.
