There's a lot of back-and-forth in this thread about whether this disproves AGW or not. Before people get too invested in these arguments, it might make sense

There's a lot of back-and-forth in this thread about whether this disproves AGW or not. Before people get too invested in these arguments, it might make sense to step back for a second or two and ask yourself the question: "What is the null hypothesis?" As far as my understanding goes, in order to be doing good science, the null hypothesis must be that there is no phenomenon to explain. So the qustion we should be asking is: "is this evidence consistent with, or does it refute, the null hypothesis?" As far as I can tell, this evidence is consistent with the null hypothesis. While that is interesting, it's not super-important, so we should all save our passion and debating time for evidence that potentially refutes the null hypothesis. That kind of evidence is much more important to find and pore over... * [edit] fixed a few typos