Lololol..sorry the article and the 'family values, conserative/libertarian" journal are weak,at best,in presenting a shred of of verifiable evidence in it's attempt to link cosmic ray interaction with micro aerosols as a major factor in climate change.
As is pointed out In the article the lead scientist conducted the experiment in a cloud chamber.

I trust old science to new science. The science of climate change has been established over DECADES. It’s not going to be disproven by one new study. It might be disproven over a decade of new studies showing the opposite.

Whenever I see an article about a promising new treatment for cancer or something I’m thinking to myself it’s a 50-50 chance at least that this direction won’t pan out. Scientific advancement is marked by failure, and true results are built out over many different studies with different facets of the issue being studied and then the metadata is the compelling evidence

This isn't new and it is almost certainly wrong.

[skepticalscience.com]

I did not look at the article because I am extremely skeptical of its argument. I've now heard it debunked for 10 years. It doesn't rise to the level of real science. If you give a reference to a peer reviewed Scientific Journal article I would consider looking but would still remain extremely skeptical.

Regardless of what is causing global warming, we should still do what we can to minimize it.