But lets not loose site of the appropriate null hypothesis here.

WSJ: Climate Emails: Science and Candor

Translation, if one were to start with a pre-trial null hypothesis probability of 50% (reflecting equipoise, an ethical prerequisite for randomizing patients), the post-trial null hypothesis probability would still be 9%, which is not sufficient to change my practice.

FORBES: Chelation For Heart Disease: Not What You Have Read

You are right, the Milankovitch forcing argument is ONLY A NULL HYPOTHESIS. I hope I haven't argued anything more than that.

WSJ: Climate Emails: Science and Candor