The paper does more than that. It measures wet bulb temperatures at different stops with different combinations and varieties of trees and bus stops, provides decent evidence of variation among these combinations, and attempts to explain the variations. For example, the roles played by evaporation from leaves and shelter material weren't obvious to me before reading.

More generally, this method of interacting with the most simplified interpretation of science and then criticizing its simplicity isn't useful to the criticizer or the criticized.

I realise that it's most improper to read the article on this website, but they actually found that shade by trees was more effective than shade by shelters which are themselves unshaded in reducing heat.

This kind of _makes sense_, as the shelter will ultimately act like an oven as it heats in the sun, but isn't all that intuitive. In some cases it was even more effective to stand outside the shelter in the shade cast by the shelter than it was to stand in the shelter!

notably cooler in tree shade, at least attempt to learn something