This requires major violations of physics that I'm not comfortable with at all.
We know that theres a significantly increased amount of CO2 that we're able to fairly precisely quantify. We know that CO2 has a number of absorbsion spectra and that the maths to derive added energy into the climate system is easily derived and based on century old completely proven physics. This isn't controversial unless you discover some mechanism that makes physics stop working (Whilst somehow fooling the instruments to make it look like physics laws are still working. I dunno, orgone energy? ghosts?) , in which case, congrats on your Nobel prize.
So the question remains. If the energy isn't being stored as heat or kinetic energy (storms and stuff), and we know that at least SOME of it is, then where is the rest? Thermodynamics can't just be handwaved.
Anthopogenic climate change *IS* the null hypothesis dude, and its so far still utterly proven and somewhat serious.