A hypothesis is guesswork. . . . NC
That too is a little sweeping.
Most hypotheses are much more than just simple guesswork. In a typical scientific environment a hypothesis is formed after a lot of evidential data is assembled and considered. This may involve data gathering in terms of exisiting data and also the assembly of new field data using the most contemporary techniques and methods. It's from such data that all possible implications are considered and a hypothesis is formed in order to develop the process of experimentation and testing (falsification). To label it simply "guesswork" as if it is just an idea plucked out of someone's imagination is not accurate in the world of science I inhabited. If the "science" you are relying on has not demonstrably been subjected to these processes . . . it's simply not science, whether it's some scientists opinion or anybody elses. Simply reading web articles written by scientists cannot be relied upon as "science" . . . unless you are prepared to actually check the science for yourself. Your leaving yourself open.
You can't be lazy with science. We had a PhD professor telling students in a University here that climate change was not really occurring and the data was inconclusive. His own students were flabbergasted so they went away and did the research themselves. The story broke in the press and the scientific community was quietly outraged. The data is overwhelmingly conclusive . . . any remaining controversy is only in the proportionary allocation of causation factors. You simply have to take responsibility for the quality of your science . . . and it takes a little work.
ED; To be fair I should add . . . the rest of what you said made a similar distinction . . . but "guesses' used in hypotheses are a small part of a greater process, a tool, . . . and are never published as science . . . and rarely published at all except for the purposes of the process. Opinions and speculation are something else, but they're not "science" or hypotheses.