“Skeptics” like Jere have had 38 years since the first consensus report was published in 1979 to find a contrary hypothesis to mainstream climate science. They haven’t done so. Many think they don’t need one. Jere seems to believe in what he calls a “null hypothesis” which states, essentially, we have no idea why climate change is happening. That’s enough for him.
I don’t know if you’re still arguing with Jere — personally I’ve had enough of him — but I put together this diagram showing the predictions of climate science and what those predictions are based on. Jere isn’t entirely clear about what “necessary and sufficient hypothesis statement” means, but you can see that climate science has made numerous falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed:

For instance, the greenhouse effect leads us directly to predict that warming from CO2 will cause nights to warm faster than days (confirmed) and that humid places cool slower than dry places (confirmed). The prediction of stratospheric cooling (confirmed) relies on a slightly more complicated chain of reasoning involving a simple model of the atmosphere. But the “tropospheric hot spot”, which scientists have been unable to prove conclusively, is a prediction from physics applied to the atmosphere. It is not directly related to the greenhouse effect or AGW, since warming for any reason should cause it.
[excerpt from my new article]
