Agree re using stats to improve models. No problem with that. And that's what is going on with climate models.
Re your claim
" hypothesis is that the rate of change of temperature over the test period is not (statistically) significantly different from a zero rate"
If you start with an understanding of the greenhouse effect;
And if you look at the extent to which we have modified the natural levels of greenhouse gasses;
and you understand the physics of that;
Then there is no credible way that you can claim to expect a zero rate of change of temperature.
Re your claim of hubris
If you read the IPCC reports and other science, the acknowledged uncertainty in climate sensitivity and a range of other factors is there. There's no hubris.
But if you want to claim that stats proves that there is a credible likelihood that there is no greenhouse effect and the rate of temperature change is not significantly different from the zero rate then, I'd say, that's your hubris right there.
