Looks like politics isn't the only place we find "Fake, but Accurate" as an argument - some of the most well respected people in the analyst game have done the same thing - Tom Peters, for instance:

Confession number three: This is pretty small beer, but for what it's worth, okay, I confess: We faked the data. A lot of people suggested it at the time. The big question was, How did you end up viewing these companies as "excellent" companies? A little while later, when a bunch of the "excellent" companies started to have some down years, that also became a huge accusation: If these companies are so excellent, Peters, then why are they doing so badly now? Which I'd say pretty much misses the point.

Umm, no Tom, it is the point. If the data is inaccurate, then you have a set of anecdotal evidence and assumptions. But go ahead, do some hand waving - like this:

Start by using common sense, by trusting your instincts, and by soliciting the views of "strange" (that is, nonconventional) people. You can always worry about proving the facts later.

Shorter Peters: "Just make crap up, and then prove by assertion."