I'm just speaking from my experiences with foiling. When I foil, there is still a stall, and it is longer than only 4% of a regular stall. It is greatly shortened however.
So all I am really disputing in the article towards evaporative cooling is that it represents 96% of the stall. I am not dismissing the concept. In fact, I would actually believe evaporative cooling could represent the majority of the stall. My experiences do not match up to what he is claiming though.
In essence, what is being claimed is that your stall on a foiled piece of meat would only be 4% as long as a non-foiled piece of meat. That is more exaggerated I believe than it really is.
I do welcome the opportunity for multiple sources to check this on their own however. If it really does average out to only 4%, then I am clearly wrong (wouldn't be the first time, I assure you). However, seeing as this means a non-foiled butt would stall for 25 times longer than a foiled one...I'm really fairly sure that what will be found is that the time savings do not match the claims given in this article. It does not dismiss cooling as a factor, it just changes the amount it is responsible for it is all.