>the author seems very confident in their conclusion They are, but honestly all that can be concluded safely IMHO is that the original D-K graph doesn't suppor

>the author seems very confident in their conclusion They are, but honestly all that can be concluded safely IMHO is that the original D-K graph doesn't support that the widely discussed "effect" which their conclusion describes exists. Therefore unless there is more evidence from some other subsequent study there may not be any evidence for it at all, and if that's the case then there's potentially no proof it exists. However, even if you prove that their data is not evidence, that doesn't actually say anything about whether the effect exists or not, just that the D-K paper isn't evidence of such an effect. I don't think that's enough for the author to conclude that "DK is autocorrelation". A more careful conclusion would be that "the DK data do not support DK's conclusion"... but of course that's much less likely to attract click throughs.