It says that red giant stars look red from far away (i.e. from Earth) but if we were right next to them, they'd appear white because they're still emitting on all parts of the visible spectrum. Really? The Sun does the same but peaks in green and still appears yellow, so I'd assume a red giant would still look red even if we were up close...
p.s. So this question is obviously not computing-related, but in anticipation of the possible addition of a science section to AstroPhD, here it is anyway
The spectrum of the stars isn't going to change with distance (appart from reddening due to scattering/extinction, or absorption). I think the point is when you are close enough to a star it is so bright that your eyes go a little crazy and saturate so you think it looks white. This is probably true, but I don't think it is fair to say that astronomers are "color illiterate". We use names like 'red' because a complete spectral rundown is too clunky, and those artists haven't yet come up with a name that accurately describes what you see when looking at a MgII emission, HI absorption on a strong thermal continuum.
A star which 'peaks in the green' appears yellow because: 1- the star still emits light at other wavelengths 2- our eyes perceive colour via cones which are sensitive to three overlapping wavebands (the red and green cones have a large overlap with each other making pure greens near impossible to see).
Reading that article I got the impression that the author turned up to work with nothing of interest to say, was quite hung over and surley, and was suffering road rage from being cut off by an astronomer and felt that this was a good way to vent.
Yeah I was surprised that the article was so colour-in-astronomy antagonistic! I looked into the author and although he does science communication, his background is in arts - which probably explains why his opinions don't really make much sense from a science perspective.