OK, well you insist on using this terminology, so let's take it further.

No astronomical body orbits another astronomical body. They orbit around a common centre of gravity, although strictly speaking, the Earth follows a geodesic line within curved space.

Whichever way you look at it, the statement that the Earth orbits the Sun is a null hypothesis.

But as far as the question of whether CO2 causes warming, that is a type of hypothesis known as a residual hypothesis. A residual hypothesis results when all other alternative hypotheses tested against it fails to achieve a predetermined significance level.

For a start, it's an effect that can be measured directly. If you want it in layman's language, it's patently obvious.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 14^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:


The man has probably allowed himself to be shot down in flames with his inaccurate predictions and scaremongering which is understandable when nothing he has predicted has actually happened.

He is not qualified in matters relating to climate change so why would he not be shot down? He lacks any credibility and has personally benefited financially through multi-million dollar grants awarded to his company to draw electricity from rocks in the South Australian desert - a spectacular failure.

You might have a good argument but I strongly doubt that relying on Flannery will pull you through it.