Except that the conclusion is dogshit. It's such a wild leap that Superman would wonder if he could follow. There's a reason we use formal stats, and it's because our intuition for these things is not reliable.
And you can see why the conclusion's bad. You can imagine a way to prove the author wrong: a hypothetical observation that you expect, that's inconsistent with their conclusion. Or, as we say in the business, “further work”.
No, the reason it's bad is that it's 100% non-sequitur. There's no reason to even consider further evidence before dismissing it.
Other commenters have pointed out that this is basically a parody article, which is the only way it makes sense. But that means anyone who thinks it represents the pinnacle of science has eaten the onion and needs to reevaluate their criteria for scientific work.
