No.  I've tried to describe actual working of a scientific hypothesis. 

That has zero to do with whether I agree with you or there is science one way or the other.

My point was that the investigation of properly formulated hypotheses should be something that people of divergent views can agree is a good thing.

The fact there is not a single hypothesis underlying the global warming (myth, concept, religion, whatever you want to call it) does not mean that the key assertions made are false.  This leads into a logical fallacy known as being challenged to refute an irrefutable hypothesis.  EG, "prove there isn't a God".

Good luck with that.  Consider the mountain, Kilimanjaro that Gore used in his sick movie - he showed it's loss of snow cover, and attributed it to CO2 increases.  Well, he was dead wrong - research later showed it conclusively to be caused by land use changes.

A reasonable hypothesis here would have been "loss of snow can be attributed to regional or local land use changes."   If that could not be shown in whole or part, then the actual air itself or incoming solar would be possible causes. 

My issue is that banning speech whether on private or public, whether by subtle forces or overt rule, would destroy the ability of science to operate as above described.  And it has done that.