Did you even study statistics? If you want to prove it's not a warp drive you need to do an experiment where it being a warp drive is the null hypothesis.
You are mistaken about what the null hypothesis is. The null hypothesis says there is no relationship between two phenomena. i.e. in this case, that the "device" has no relationship to thrust
You would never try to prove that the thing is NOT a warp drive. You cannot prove a negative assertion. The proper experiment would be to prove it is a warp drive (i.e. to reject the null hypothesis).
A basic intro to all this can be found in the usual place.
Plenty of good science has been done, it's not conclusive yet, you must imagine good science does everything in one fell swoop and takes no time or budget. I guess you didn't study science either.
No, good science will have been "done" when they actually publish their results, including experimental setup, raw data, statistical analysis, etc. and these results are peer reviewed.
What they have done so far is take some very initial observations that are currently unexplained, and decide to go ahead and release these results to the media. That is not "good" science, especially given that every single person in that lab knows damn well it is extremely unlikely this is some magical new form of propulsion.
Wake me up when you don't summarize your position with an appeal to authority.
That is not what "appeal to authority" means. An appeal to authority would be "Dan McCleese says this thing is a warp drive, and he's really smart! It must be a warp drive!"
My appeal is to have someone else independently verify their results. Requiring JPL was just a bit of facetiousness. What I would really want is independent verification by a number of other labs/researchers.
Good science takes time and proper diligence. Releasing unverified "observations" to the media for hype does science a disservice.