So it's a serious entrant, and from my potentially biased point of view in the nuclear fission category, I don't know many other entrants that you look and say, «Okay, if you go from paper to real
then this is a
meaningful contribution to cheap energy / global warming as an incredible problem.»
At the time I did not know whether the bump was
meaningful or not, but it seemed to me at the time that the mere fact that it coincided with postwar uncontrolled emissions could constitute an explanation of it, thereby justifying omitting its
contribution to the unexplained variance, which would
then have justified «to within a millikelvin» for the entire period (neglecting the decade at each end, which as everyone including me keeps saying are meaningless).