Kuhn’s work shows that a paradigm cannot be disproved, only replaced (details here).
To venture a guess I would say that among skeptics the dominant hypothesis is that some factor to do with the Sun is far more important than man-made CO2.
To the end that skeptics need an alternate hypothesis, I agree, and there are many working on just that.
Respondents were picked because they had authored articles with the key words ‘global warming’ and/or ‘global climate change’, covering the 1991–2011 period, via the Web of Science, or were included the climate scientist database assembled by Jim Prall, or just by a survey of peer reviewed climate science articles.
Prall’s database includes some 200 names that have criticized mainstream science and about half had only published in “gray literature”.
Fabius Maximus suggests we exclude the “I don’t knows” which brings up the number to 47%.
Since these are “climate scientists” I don’t see why those responses should be excluded.: Curiously this new detailed study builds on a previous study by the PBL Netherlands Climate Assessment Agency, which was issued in 2014 and includes the same authors, as well as John Cook and a few others.Jose Duarte responded to that first version, pointing out that many of the people surveyed worked in mitigation and impacts of climate change, (not climate “science” per se) which artificially inflated the results..To that end, I would say that no one has ever done a decent survey of skeptical scientists, so we don’t know.Though the fact that so many psychologists say they want to understand skeptics and so few of them survey the scientists or leaders involved in this is rather significant, methinks.An expert saying “I don’t know” on the certainty question is an emphatic disagreement with the IPCC 95% certainty.