Years ago I saw an 'interesting' set of data. The data presented an analysis of stock market (NYSE) performance versus an unnamed variable, x. The data showed an extremely high statistical correlation between NYSE performance and x. It showed that a barrage of statistical tests indicated (presumably) that x 'caused' NYSE. The article concluded with the revelation that x was, in fact, the batting average of the 1912 New York Yankees over some time period.
How can this be? What does that mean? I'm sure you've noticed that the authors are very careful in the way they phrase the results of statistical analysis.....e.g. when you reject an hypothesis you don't conclude that something caused something else. You conclude that "there is or is not enough statistical evidence to reject or accept Ho".