<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Real Science]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[stevengoddard]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/author/stevengoddard/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Something John Cook And I Agree&nbsp;About]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p style="padding-left:30px;"><em><strong>So next time someone shows you a “statistically significant” result, do tell them: “I don&#8217;t care how low your <var>p</var>-value   is.  Show me the physics and tell me the size of the effect.  Then we   can discuss whether your hypothesis makes sense.” Stop quibbling about   meaningless statistical smoke and mirrors.</strong></em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=456">http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=456</a></p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been saying the same thing for years. The science has to make sense.</p>
<p>Consider the hockey stock. Claiming that the trees stopped giving the right answer fifty years ago is a scientific abomination. Mann blew off the science and went straight into the world of statistical nonsense.</p>
<p>And apparently he forgot to mark what he had done on the hockey stick.</p>
<p><em><br />
</em></p>
]]></html></oembed>