Excellent analogy!
You seem more in line with the kind of medical thinking that held sway in the 17th century where everyone simply took Galen's writings as how things should be, rather than having an understanding of how the human body works.
Your continual quotation of Kuhn and Myrdal et al about how science works is really pretty empty. You have no way to assess whether Kuhn is correct, or Popper is correct on how science advances, you simply find quotes from your favorite philosopher to confirm your personal bias.
You, without any real understanding of how science works, let alone the technical aspects of AGW, don't like AGW so you need "cover" to give you comfort for siding with the tiny fringe minority in the field. So you leaf through Kuhn and see things about "normal science" vs revolution and figure that "Hey, there have been revolutions in the past, so my personal opinion of how AGW isn't true can possibly be a new revolution!"
Sure, there's a slim chance, but you won't be right because you saw further than anyone...you will be right due to random chance.
It's like going to a roulette table and plopping all your money down on one color/number combination and winning. It doesn't require strategy or knowledge of how or why it was going to work out.
If I were you, ceteris paribus, I wouldn't bet against the house.