The first thing that comes to mind is that correlation is not causation. The author says nothing to address that. In fact, not far into the article they effect

The first thing that comes to mind is that correlation is not causation. The author says nothing to address that. In fact, not far into the article they effectively state they're just going to assume that his hypothesis is correct and then proceeds to hunt for reasons why. This raises all kinds of red flags for me. I'm sure you don't have to look far for a common cause explanation of the hypothesis.