Sceptics vs. non-sceptics: progress & purdah

I knew something was wrong when my computer started becoming socialist when it turned on. A red hue turned the whole screen pink. A few days trying to use the laptop with an external screen convinced me I needed a new PC which is now in the post. I’ve borrowed one to write this.
So, apologies if anyone has tried to emailed and this is likely to continue for a few days as I can’t read all my accounts.
However, the break from posting has proven useful.
I spent a few days looking at papers on cognitive psychology trying to work out a better framework for the table of “Sceptic vs. non-sceptic”. I even found several interesting papers by someone named “Lewandowsky” which I assumed to be an entirely different person in Bristol – but before trying to contact them I thought I better check – and was glad I did.
I had considered many theories put forward and many more that have never been suggested.  Then after a meeting with a sceptic academic I took our German exchange student to the school to see them off.
I stood with my son for ages watching the Germans and Scots. The day before I did a facial emotion recognition test and was joking about being able to spot the various emotions. (They were obvious because of the tears) My son was teasing me on my “social intelligence” as I suggested we could just leave. I was commenting on the rituals and pretending the children running around the bus was the start of a new Scottish fairwell ritual. Eventually the last German arrived, very red faced (which I recognised as severe embarrassment) and finally they left.
Continuing the banter at home we were chatting as we made lunch, and I was saying that I just could not understand why sceptics and non-sceptics saw the same data and came to different conclusions … when my 17 year old son suggested the answer… and it all clicked into place.
After thinking a lot about it, I cannot find fault. I have discussed it with a friend who is very critical and they could not find fault. So it looks like the first serious contender for an explanation.
Therefore it appears I now have a testable & better still value-neutral neutral hypothesis (it doesn’t imply either side is wrong or right) which seems to fit all I know about the situation. It even explains Lewandowsky’s perception of “conspiracy theorists”, why other theories have developed and e.g. the climategate University comments of “you only want the data to find something wrong with it”.
Next stage
The next stage is to test this hypothesis. I need to speak to some people who have experience first, but then I will compile suitable questions to confirm or dismiss the hypothesis using an online survey.
Realistically this will take 2-6 weeks, and  unfortunately, until I have done the survey I cannot go into more details as this could bias the results.
Update of the table
Unfortunately I do not think it would be sensible to update the table until after the questionnaire results are in. Therefore unless or until I have advice that it would be OK to go ahead with the table I will not be updating it or commenting further.