Does it? Based on the links you've provided, it seems like there are ten scientists who disagree. One of those links talks entirely about a Malaria specialist who disagrees. Further, because these scientists are published in the news instead of reliable science journals, their expertise is questionable. This compares to the countless scientists who believe that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

It seems to me that only a few scientists disagree with global warming, but those few are getting a lot of media attention, probably because the news likes to give the viewer "the real story" and "both sides of the issue", even when the "real story" is unlikely, and the "other side of the issue" isn't really backed up by science.

In case it is unclear, both of those links are talking about a TV show entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". One is apparently an advertisement for the show, while the other is a news article.

This is the argument of those opposed to global warming by green house gases, as I understand it:

While some of the recent global warming is due to green house gases, the majority of it is due to increased solar activity. In the future, we may still see temperature increases due to green house gases, but those temperature increases will not be as dramatic as other scientists believe, because we are overestimating the effect of green house gases today.

While it is clear that the increase in the sun's activity will have very little direct impact on the Earth's temperature, it will have an indirect one. Increases in the sun's activity reduce the number of galactic cosmic rays which reach the Earth. These rays are responsible for the creation of low-level clounds, and because there are less of these rays, there are less low-level clouds. This results in more of the sun's energy reaching the earth, and thus there are higher temperatures.

I found further explanation here:
Sciencebits | Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

This is a relatively new theory, which has not undergone much testing. It is criticized because there isn't really enough evidence to say that this mechanism happens at all. That is, they've got theory behind it, and they found some correlations, but in other places, the relationship seems to disappear. It may be that they are ignoring places where the numbers don't line up, focusing on places where they do. Furthermore, it does not seem that there is necessarily anything wrong with the green house gases model. It is difficult to look at the green house gases model and say that it is must be wrong for some reason.

I found further explanation at these links:
RealClimate » Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays
RealClimate » The lure of solar forcing

Since, it seems like the numbers supporting the galactic cosmic rays theory seem to fall apart in some places, and the large majority of scientists support the green house gases theory, I feel that the most logical theory at this point is the green house gases theory. Further, both sides do acknowledge that green house gases do increase the Earth's temperature; the debate is about how much it increases, so the claims that "Global Warming doesn't exist" or "the Greenhouse effect is a myth" are backed by no scientist.