Did you read the entire article?
"
The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have
refuted
the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points."
There are many contrarian articles and studies like this and that is a good thing (IMO). These alternative theories (sun cycles, cloud cover, magnetic field flip) are debated
ad nauseum in scientific circles. Deniers (and the press, which loves to promote "the controversy") pick up on these and say it "proves" that AGW is either unsupported by science or is some kind of hoax/conspiracy. It doesn't mean that at all. It is the normal way science works - testing and probing the consensus model. If one of these alternative theories actually managed to overturn the CO2/Greenhouse/AGW model, the authors would be showered with accolades, up to and including a Nobel Prize (although that tends to take a few decades).I'd personally send them a six pack or two.
If you are genuinely interested in the discussion around alternative climate drivers and their relationship to the main climate models, scroll through a few years of discussion on
www.skepticalscience.com
