I did find the report on a recent study on knowledge of the theory of global warming very interesting. Not surprising, but interesting.

It found that those who accept the theory have very little knowledge of it, or how it is supposed to work. They simply accept authority as handed down to them in the majority, or try to use it, without understanding it, for their own purpose.

Those on the other hand, who have made some effort to study the theory almost to a person, reject it as false, unless they are profiting from it's use, or using it to further some personal objective.

In the study the rejecters could answer over twice as many questions on how the theory was supposed to work.

Obviously most of the warmists on here are in the first category. Not surprisingly their arguments are verbal, not scientific.

Hasbeen, you make lots of statements without providing any data.
I find it quite astounding that you write off the "recent study". I suppose you mean the study from the Australian Academy of Science.

You wrote "I did find the report on a recent study on knowledge of the theory of global warming very interesting."

Your comment is meaningless, your comment about the Australian Academy of Science is quite disparaging, if that is the science paper you referred too. If you have any better information produce it. All that deniers have been doing is say that's wrong without providing a field of scientific proof in showing that man made climate change is wrong. Sometimes Watts is used as a reference; he is not a scientist, and I have just come across another reference showing how wrong he is.

You might like to give a scientific explanation in relation to "drunken trees." Scientists have identified it as part of climate change; but, Hasbeen, you will not be able to come up with a plausible explanation.
Elsewhere today, somebody was commenting that the forecast temperature for Fairbanks, Alaska, is 12C above average for this week. Permafrost begins to melt at 1.5C. In other words, it gets a bit difficult to argue against surface temperatures in relation to "drunken trees".

The question then arises why have average surface temperatures been rising in the Arctic over the last decades.
Also,what has caused those surface temperatures to rise, previous answers by deniers have been shown to be wrong by scientists. Its not something you can answer in a convincing way.
Do you know better than Psychiatrist, Orthopaedic Surgeons, Neurosurgeons, Ophthalmologists, Biologists, Marine Scientists, Atmospheric Scientists, or Glaciologists etc; if not, what gives you the presumptiveness to suggest you know better than climate scientists.