My mother used to say that as a way of enumerating my serial misdemeanors. I used to think that umpteen = umpteen + 1 since the number umpteen stayed the same with each new misdemeanor. I now know that this property is claimed by a much larger number than my mother had in mind. Returning to this problem after many years I wonder if it is the solution to the equation

umpteen =rounddown(umpteen + M)

where M is a number just a little bit less than 1 for each new misdemeanor. That (M less than 1) as well as the use of rounddown rather than (say) roundup maybe shows a generosity that I missed at the time.

But does someone else have a better definition of umpteen?

Nice hockey stick. Mind if I “borrow” the data? I have something I need to prove in order to get some funding.

Dropped my tip in the jar as well. Good job and keep at it!

For me, this whole saga, while not scientifically all that relevant (but politically very relevant), is showing two things:
1. the whole argument of ‘only peer-reviewed papers are accurate/admissible’ is weak, or at least badly flawed; and
2. many of the the scientific people behind AGW are being shown up to be activists – they are clearly not just dispassionate scientists only interested in the truth. That’s not to say some of them aren’t still good scientists – rather they spend a little too much time pushing an agenda.