Alas, I really can’t be bothered to snark it much – perhaps the Wabbit can raise the energy – and indeed I barely managed to skim a few pages before being overcome by both the colour scheme and the tedium. I got far enough to notice that he is still trying to defend his misrepresentation of IPCC ’90 fig 7.1.c, which is dull of him (though when I talk about it, it is interesting). Still, it is charming to know that he cares so deeply.
[Update: Eli is onto it like an Energiser Bunny -W]
[And another: scrotum is not to be left behind, and hits TPP where it hurts: in the credentials. Lord M has none, and so is obsessed by them. Which is sad and silly because they don't matter - what matters is the sanity of your writing. However, TPP says "I have published what is on any view a heavily mathematical paper on the determination of climate sensitivity in a reviewed journal". As Gareth points out, the text wasn't peer-reviewed, and wasn't in a peer-reviewed journal. And is hopelessly wrong. It is also rather stretching it to call it "heavily mathematical" but that is a different matter.]