> Imagine for a moment that this study was trying to demonstrate that e.g. climate change was primarily caused by solar variation a la Willie Wei-Hock Soon [1].

> Imagine for a moment that this study was trying to demonstrate that e.g. climate change was primarily caused by solar variation a la Willie Wei-Hock Soon [1]. And he provided the exact same quality of evidence, and the exact same "issues." I suspect we don't agree on what the "exact same quality of evidence" would be. But the prior probability matters, too. A trial where a die looks slightly-biased-towards-6 (with weak significance) after 3 prior trials where it looked strongly-biased-towards-1 (with high significance) doesn't do much to change our mind about the previous findings. Base rate fallacy, yada yada yada.