Contested, perhaps, but I think debunked is too strong of a term. I am acquainted with several of the people involved. While everyone makes errors from time to

Contested, perhaps, but I think debunked is too strong of a term. I am acquainted with several of the people involved. While everyone makes errors from time to time, I find it very hard to believe Greaves, et al, would have been sloppy in any way. And, I think, the article was quite clear about the fact that the result had been called into question. Regardless, the article is about a different team, with a different instrument, and a different (historical) data set getting a result that may support the Greaves result. Talking about Greaves is largely tangential to the article.