"scientists remain clueless about the drunken, self-absorbed bastard named Jackson Pollock"

I thought that they reached the correct conclusion. Pollock's "paintings" are just random paint spatters. Therefor, you can not use mathematical analysis to show that an unprovenanced random paint spatter was from the hand of said drunk or from some other drunks hand.

Another way of putting it would be that there was no method behind Pollock's madness, it was just gin.

I missed the real sign that the paper's authors are in on the joke. The title of the paper is:

"Never mind the Pollocks"

I'm crazy 'bout a Mercury, cruise it up and down the road.

Forget it, Jake. It's Arkansas.

I'm totally in the tank for the "Doctor's Plan for Legal Reform". I want it and I want it NOW!

I'm glad Ace has called out charles johnson.
LGF did some great work with Rathergate and the Fauxtography in Beirut/Lebanon, and used to be on top of the jihad. But man, has that dude gone off the tracks...Captain Ahab Johnson in his pursuit of Glen Beck; portraying the Tea Partiers as Ron Paulians; over the top on Townhallers, calling all anti-big gubmint speaker "screamers"; and his obsession with creationists...please...
He's lost it.
If he spent half the time going after the left as he does going after the right, you might see some balance.
He's clearly imbalanced.

The biggest puzzle to me about the missing intellectual heft in conservatism is this: if they're so smart, why don't they fill the gap?

the title 'never mind the pollocks' was an obvious play on words, referencing the sex pistols album. Nature of course did not run that irreverent title when they published our paper; in fact the version that appears on the arXiv is not the same as what appeared in the journal; we are not allowed to post that version on public forums, as per Nature's restrictions. our second paper on this topic was published in physical review E, and is available at arXiv:0710.4917