A quote from the referenced paper:
"Low formal statistical significance does not mean the correlations we find are in fact spurious, only that we cannot demonstrate otherwise."
So the correlations they describe in the paper could very well be -- spurious. Meaning basically nothing more than coincidence.
And that's what the AUTHORS themselves wrote.
True.
However, they say that because this is real science. The man made GW proponents write “scientific” articles that accept only possible variations of bad, worse, disasterous. No possibility that their theories are spurious. If they were honest about their so called research, there would be a lot of similar caveats in their publications. But they are not honest and there are none.
That's not what the statement means. You are distorting a plain sentence to suit your bias. A noisy and visually uninteresting correlation could easily be "statistically significant" with enough data points, but scientifically useless. The social sciences are full of them. No useful research finding in those fields has ever relied on statistical significance. The error terms are just too large for practical application.
The useful findings jump off the paper at you, even though the numbers may be too small to meet the formal statistical parameters. I suspect the atmospheric sciences are the same way.