Yet again, we are presented with an example of why scientific theories are never to be taken too seriously — even though the scientists themselves invariably claim that they have “finally solved the riddle of [fill in the blank].
Some scientific theories prove to be so weak that they only "explain" observations that have already been made.
Some theories, however, are of such a nature that they suggest new observations to make and predict what those observations will be.
An example is the theory of General Relativity. Without having observed it, Einstein predicted the bending of light in a gravitational field. About fifteen years after the theory was presented, the opportunity to make observations that would confirm that prediction arose and the prediction was verified (though there is controversy about the accuracy of those observations.)
New scientific theories are constrained by having to explain all past observations.
The original theory of black holes was to explain what would happen if more and more matter was allowed to collect into one location, creating a gravitational field that we already know would prevent the escape of light.
Subsequent observations showed that some energy was being emitted despite the prohibitive level of the gravitational field.
Hawking, I believe, is given the credit for explaining how quantum theory WOULD allow reactions to occur at or near the "even horizon" such that mass/energy trapped in the black hole could escape and be detected. This mechanism demonstrates that "black holes" are not completely "black". They can give up mass/energy and become smaller with time.
One should be careful not to confuse global-warming studies with "science".