The CO_2 greenhouse effect is good established science--it is reproducible in a laboratory. It's connection to "global warming" is speculative at best and not good science. The word "global" is so misused. (They mean "planetary", "global" warming would mean that the warming was distributed over each and every point of the domain.) Also the connection between the burning of carbon fuels and the atmospheric level of CO_2 is fanciful in view of the magnitude of other sources.
The article is correct though that there are other potent factors that act like greenhouse or anti-greenhouse.
And apparently at the CO2 levels on Venus it does become the dominant factor.
BTW, isn't it ironic that greenhouses don't use the greenhouse effect to stay warm?
So, water is a greenhouse gas? We be in big trouble.