The article invites that kind of response by presenting arguments for the existence of dark matter as if they are undeniable. In reality the road to consensus w

The article invites that kind of response by presenting arguments for the existence of dark matter as if they are undeniable. In reality the road to consensus was anything but smooth. Science works best when you are skeptical of claims, test alternatives, and find evidence that contradict the alternative hypothesis. If you want to discuss controversial science you need to anticipate objections, show the work has been done to test the alternatives, and then leave the reader with the sense that your hypothesis is undeniable (because they can't think up any more objections.) This absurdly high burden is what makes science both hard and effective. For dark matter a large number of the initial objections have been tested thoroughly, but since they weren't covered people unfamiliar with the subject (and I don't claim to be an expert) will naturally dredge up their own objections.