If you actually read the article - it does not refute the study in any form. It mostly criticizes media, does couple weak character assassination attempts, and cites some methodology concerns (that would not invalidate the study) from the previous study.

This type of "impossible standard" attack is the only way they can attempt to discredit what is now very uncontroversial scientific consensus.

Consider this: Any study that could soundly disprove "global warming" would not only have unlimited budget from Big Oil, Big Coal and such, but would also guarantee publications for life, probably a Nobel, tenure, and more fame than could be had anywhere else in the climate science field.

[Linked Image]