A hypothesis on the other hand is generally much more specific. You would say something like "I hypothesize eating 1750 more calories a day than my usual 2500 will cause me to gain half a pound of body fat a day". You would then perform a carefully controlled experiment where you eat the extra calories then test the effects, your weight, bodyfat scale, caliper measurements, etc over a range of time long enough to give enough accuracy to your unit measurements (weight, bodyfat %). If the results of your experiments, the data, seemed to corroborate your hypothesis you could conclude your hypothesis was correct. Now that doesn't necessarily mean your hypothesis is correct, just that it wasn't proven false.
For something large and complex like climate change, you cannot setup a lab where you test an Earth and play with the variables. You cannot adjust the independent variable Co2, then look at the dependent variable temperature, account for the controlled variables (thousands of different things going on), then say ok look at the results it shows a clear increase in temperature directly proportionate to Co2 increase while all other variables have remained absolutely static.
For earth sciences we often have to use models. So what we really have is the "climate change model" which is a variation on climate change theory. The precise terminology doesn't really matter. "Elevating" climate change to a "theory" or "model" doesn't really mean anything. Its not like scientists have some party where they smack a bell with a hammer and declare climate change a theory that cannot be refuted or some such nonsense. A theory is just the best explanation for a well tested, well observed phenomenon. It doesn't mean its right, just that its a battle tested explanation that is probably right.
Another problem with what you are doing is you are cherry picking. You are taking tidbits of knowledge and saying look! look! its not perfect! It seems to suggest something else! Look! That tidbit may in fact suggest another explanation, however its just 1 tidbit of 100 and the other 99 support the opposite... So you see just focusing on small parts of the argument and drawing massive conclusions (the WHOLE thing is a fraud, incorrect), is really silly. You have to look at the entire picture and judge it as a cohesive whole. That is where the climate change model's strength lies. There is a lot of data, observations, explanations, individual hypothesis that support the theory. That is what the scientific method is all about... You build a solid brick wall of well tested, credible science and over time you trust it more and more, it becomes stronger and less likely to be wrong. When something new comes along that seems to suggest otherwise, you don't just pounce and say forget it! forget that whole brick wall of science, lets blow it all down and say its all wrong because this ONE piece of evidence doesn't seem to fit!
If you give it time and careful consideration you will find the science sorts itself out and the new information will be scrubbed and fit into the wall one way or another.