Well, at least they seem to be catching up on the... bendability of the term 'scientific proof'.
I've had my first doubts about 'scientific proof' and 'scientific fact' when I caught fellow students making up data because they were too lazy to actually interview and assess the - readily available - human test subjects. They just made up random values, and the whole 'study' went to be published unchallenged, attached to the name of a renowned and respected professor that 'lead' the study. All he did was sign off on it, like some managerial type.
Now, when you add hardcore political loopiness to the mix, pretty much anything becomes possible.