Your lack of understanding here doesn't mean shit.
An example of hypothesis here, say that carbon dioxide absorbs the primary spectra of light that radiate from the earth as kinetic energy, is easily proven in a lab with easily acquired equipment.
The primary inference of that and other hypotheses that you're pretending is up for debate has been so thoroughly demonstrated through both direct observational evidence and predictive modeling based experiments, that it's accepted by experts throughout virtually the entire applicable field.
It's not anyone's fault but your own that you see applying predictive value from existing theories, and corroborating that with real world observational evidence as anything other than normal scientific application.
There is no standing null hypothesis to the idea that the earth is rapidly warming due to CO2, there are a couple of alternate assertions about the cause of observationally higher temperatures that technically have some scientific basis, but none of them have anything approaching the respectability de facto scientific understanding that the earth is retaining more heat than ever before.
The fact that you don't even begin to understand the philosophy of science isn't a reason global warming "is bullshit" it's a poor reflection on your own character.
Let me repeat, you don't even understand how science works. And you should start learning somewhere.
A complex well-established theory is not the same as a hypothesis, and you should either learn the difference, or not pretend to understand.