That's a higher probability than the theory of gravity being the equivalent of the theory of climate change (hint: there IS no theory on climate change. There is one called AGW (warming), but the problem is it's not warming like the theory said it would, so they had to come up with another idea.
Just ask the next climate scientist (like Jennifer Anniston) to state their null hypothesis.
There isn't one, unless it is that the earth's climate was invariant prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Scientifically speaking, the concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hypothesis, not a theory.
A theory is a conceptual framework informed by experimental and observational data. Theories tend to be revised and refined over time as more data becomes available. While there are theories on climate change, the actual theories are built on the observations of solar activity, orbital variances, and other cycles which affect the earth.
Ideally, in order for an idea to qualify as a hypothesis, it would have some element of testability. I'm not certain of the testable aspects of the AGW idea. A hypothesis must also be accompanied by a null hypothesis. Thus, a hypothesis and its null are stated, "If A is an actual phenomenon and we perform experiment B, we should expect to see result X. However, if A is not the case, we should expect to see result Y from experiment B." On the contrary, all I've ever seen (in countless scientific papers) is, "We observed A, and that proves AGW!" And such a statement is pronounced with the same kind of breathless excitement that CNN anchors use to pronounce that yet another nothingburger is absolute proof of Trump/Russia collusion.