In the whole document, "greenhouse effect" is misused. They are correct that it is not a "glass house" effect, but they measure a greenhouse (car) regardless. The primary difference is that the glass is one thin sheet whereas the GH gasses are the whole atmosphere. If the interior of the car glass were 71C and the exterior of the glass were 31C, then it would be a useful analogy, but it's obviously not.
page 38: "Furthermore it is implied that the spectral transmissivity of a medium determines its thermal conductivity straightforwardly" That is not implied by the previous quotation, which, although poorly worded, implies that the entire thickness of the atmosphere is the glass. There is no air trapped inside of glass that has specified thermal conductivity. There is only air with conductivity, convection, etc. The quoted author (Moller) does not imply otherwise.
This is followed on pp 39 and 40 by a bunch of poorly worded descriptions of the GH effect. For a better description see here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/langswitch_lang/sw
Thanks for commenting. I think we can move on to more cogent skeptical points than this one.