I guess it could be? I interpreted what the parent commenter wrote like "the variables aren't actually correlated" (which definitely does happen sometimes)

Whereas my point is moreso when, the variables really are correlated but it's purely due to random chance. Not bullshit, per se, just bad luck (or possibly, p-hacking).

(Though the solution to both is the same - you shouldn't trust a study until it's been independently replicated on new data.)