I will correct them:
[I found quite a bit and added some block quotes]

Regarding link given by ARRELL at Current Events thread- which getting unwieldy. Link is:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

A couple things to note regarding table:
"TABLE I: Relevant parameters for the planets. See http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ "

It indicates Mars doesn't have greenhouse affect. Which I think is incorrect.
Ref:
"The atmosphere of Mars is also predominantly carbon dioxide, but Mars does not have a significant Greenhouse condition because the atmosphere is so thin that it cannot absorb much of the infrared energy which is emitted by the surface. The surface pressure on Mars is about 100 times less than it is on Earth, which is itself about 90 times less than it is on Venus. It is estimated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars warms the atmosphere at the surface by less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mod-x/id-green.html

"Mars' thin atmosphere produces a greenhouse effect but it is only enough to raise the surface temperature by 5 degrees (K); much less than what we see on Venus and Earth."
http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html

And:

"The team's results, published in this week's issue of the journal Nature, show that the decrease in Mars's reflectivity has caused a warming of 1.17 degree Fahrenheit (0.65 degree Celsius) between 1975 and 1995."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

I think that 5 K is more of temperature increase as compared to Earth due to it's CO2 levels.

Mars is much smaller than Earth but has around as much or more, CO2 in total amount, but it comparison in terms of infrared window [or slice of the atmosphere], Mars has much more greenhouse effect from it's higher quantity of CO2 than from Earth's CO2.

If one were interested in greenhouse gases and CO2 in particular, it seems to me, that Mars is where one should look and focus on, as far checking out any model to do with CO2. This is because it's got comparatively more than twice the CO2. And mostly the atmosphere is CO2- so other factors are less likely to interfere. But not only that but I believe, changing levels of CO2 due seasonal/climatic/weather changes.

Assuming that part of paper is wrong, how is possible to overlook this? It's like a elephant hunter not knowing what continent elephants are on.

Next point of interest is on same chart:
It shows the Moon with -17 K difference. Why is that?
Before you explain about it's rotation difference, remember this statement in the above pdf article:

"So no matter the rotation rate, no matter the surface heat capacity, the average temperature of the planet in this rotating example, with only radiative energy flows and no absorbing layer in the atmosphere, is always less than the effective radiating temperature. For very slow rotation or low heat capacity it can be significantly less; for parameters in the other direction it can come as close as 1% (i.e. up to 252 K on a planet like Earth)."

Now, you could say the Moon has "very slow rotation". But it does rotate every 29 days, is that what is meant by very slow? What if Earth had 708.7 hour day?
What is slow, more than 100 hour day?
The moon rotates quite fast compared to Mercury or Venus- Moon is slow compared to Earth but not to all planets.

Now, leaving out any large exposed rocks, the Moon has a what could called a low surface heat capacity. But if leave out Earth oceans, Earth also has a pretty low surface heat capacity.

Say you add some atmosphere to the Moon; what do you get- other unimaginable dust storms? Does the dust add to the "greenhouse affect" or using term in PDF article, adds more than the "effective radiating temperature"?

There is no shortage dust in Earth's atmosphere; is that counted?
If Earth was such that it makes Mars' storms seem like clear sky, do we only then count the degree that dust is making it more than the "effective radiating"? { article quoted above say Mars dust storms adds "1.17 degree Fahrenheit"}

Getting back to the Moon. Say there some wind from some atmosphere and this wind piled the dust up somewhere and left large areas of bare rock, would this effect be quantitatively, somewhere around as much of difference as whatever temperature decrease is due to slow rotation? Or any other factor causing the Moon to be -17 C?

Now, as I said in another thread:
http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/505699.html

The Moon probably adds some heat to Earth's atmosphere due to it's radiation. Now, the Earth on average is much colder than the Moon lit side, but it still radiating a quantity of heat energy. But probably more significant is the light reflected from Earth.
According to the numbers on same chart of first referenced PDF article Earth has albedo of 0.306 [I should note this number is different than other numbers I have seen]
E.g. :

For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

EARTH — Albedo: 0.367
According to http://open-encyclopedia.com/Earth

Wiki:

The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%"

Maybe .30 without counting clouds. But as far reflected sunlight from this should be some amount energy heating the Moon, but the Moon on average the -17 below where it should be.