Etienne Godin mades some good points about various credibility problems with the paper. I decided to take a quick look at the actual content, to see if the authors have any good points. I'll summarize my findings in two broad categories.
Statements made without evidence
The paper is poorly referenced, as Edienne Godin says. That in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem if the paper is able to make its own arguments. After all, Einstein couldn't rely on references to make his points about special relativity.
However, the paper doesn't do a good job of providing internal evidence for some of its claims. The key foundation claim is that the various bodies creating global temperature estimates are systematically biasing the underlying GHCN climate data to show more warming than there actually is. Most of these claims appear on page 9 of the linked paper, or thereabouts.
The authors claim that there is an increase in climate sensing stations that are located at 'urban' airports; while providing no evidence about how airports are affected by urban heat island effects. The 'reference' blog linked from the paper makes claims about poorly sited meteorological stations being used in the data set, but has no systematic evidence (i.e. not anecdotal evidence) about how many stations are poorly sited, and if those numbers have fluctuated in the past.
The authors claim that
Changes in technology introduced new discrepancies through instrument
biases and forced related changes in siting. In addition, over the
past 100 plus years , the daily time of observation varied from
location to location and often changed over time, which has a varying
effect on calendar day highs and lows and for which appropriate
adjustments to raw data must be made.
However, they provide no evidence as to how or in which direction modern instruments might be biased compared to older ones, nor do they provide any evidence that the time of observation has changed.
These claims basically amount to a courtroom-style tactic of casting doubt on the prosecution's story. However, without evidence global temperature estimates are systematically biased, I'm inclined to trust the peer-reviewed work of the scientists who made these estimates in the first place.
Without evidence supporting these claims, the author's argument falls apart, in my opinion. The rest of the paper points to the corrections made in older data, showing that corrections made over the last 25 years have steadily increased the magnitude of global temperature rise in the 20th century. These historical data corrections are made for a purpose. If the authors of this paper think the historical data corrections are not being done properly, then they have to attack the methodology behind those corrections. However, the authors of the linked paper do not do this.
The underlying data still supports global warming
As I mentioned, the thrust of the article is that corrections made to the calculation of global temperature averages from historical data are systematically biasing the data in favor of a linear warming trend.
The graph on page 11 of the paper provides a key piece of evidence. The blue line shows the original 1980 global historical temperature estimates, while the other lines show progressive refinements of that data through 2015. However, the original line still shows increasing temperatures. Even only though 1980, the original line shows a temperature increase (albeit cyclical) of about 0.4 C over the hundred odd years of the chart. Even if the newer data's 'correction factor' of about +0.15 C (per chart IV-2) is taken out, the temperatures then rise another 0.4-0.15 = 0.25 C in the 30 years from 1980 to 2010.
In short, the author's argument is that the global warming effect is being created by systematic biasing of an underlying data set; however, the underlying data set itself still shows a positive (if cyclical) warming trend of about 0.65 C over the past 130 years.
Therefore, even assuming the author's claims are correct that researchers are inappropriately manipulating data, the evidence still shows global warming over the past century plus. This suggests that if the authors are correct, perhaps the sensitivity of the climate models should be lowered; I don't see how it upends modern global warming theory or 'totally dismantles' anything.
Conclusion
I like to consider myself a skeptic, more or less. However, skepticism requires evidence, and there just isn't any evidence in this paper. Furthermore, even if the papers unsupported assertions turn out to be true, they don't provide an argument, much less any evidence, that carbon dioxide driven global warming is not happening. They don't provide any alternative theories to explain the magnitude of the warming that visible in the data, assuming that they are true in their claims of improper correction.
Therefore, I would have to answer the question 'Could this study "totally dismantle" Global Warming claims?' with a categorical no.
