As you said originally — you set no limit to the possible
random number on the paper, which screws up some intuitive responses to the problem.
Not exact matches
The authors of Numerical Recipes, indeed, claim in particular that «If all scientific
papers whose results are in doubt because of bad (
random number generation programs) were to disappear from library shelves, there would be a gap
on each shelf about as big as your fist.»
«
Numbers that are almost pulled out at
random or written
on a piece of
paper actually serve as anchors in both parties» minds.
It would be an interesting exercise to select a sufficient
number for statistical significance of
random papers in other fields of science, and try to recreate their results based
on publicly available data, and compare that against the allegations against climate scientists.