I suggest googling up the references, heck it actually linked to several works cited criticizing the study. I suggest you read again.

That you even think that the refutation was of "global warming" shows that you either did not read the article, or have a very low level of reading comprehension.

What this article was highlighting, is the refutation of an "alarmist" study that had gotten media attention for the study, but not the refutation when it turns out to be bad science.

The article was not about refuting global warming , it was about how certain sectors hyperventilate over untested claims that end up withering under peer review simply because it makes for titillating news.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)