I don't think the general population is thinking about it that much. To me, the main denial seems to be a dislike and/or distrust of the people advocating the AGW theory.
For example, having Al Gore as a prominent figure of the AGW theory movement for a number of years is enough to make them suspicious. They see him fly in private jets, own multiple humongous homes, make investments that will pay off if things like carbon credits become mainstream, release a movie 9 months after Katrina that promised more and more severe hurricanes that never materialized, etc, etc. He might not be a duck but he sure seems to quack a lot.
The other main denial seems to be things like, "It's cold today - in your face global warming".
I think Michael Mann is giving people far too much credit.
There's also the pretty standard *these scientists' intuitions about causal links between human activity, atmospheric CO^2 and recorded temperature might well be right. But you're not convincing me to pay carbon taxes or cycle. Which is less unreasonable than it sounds when you consider the evidence of human ability to slow or reverse climate change (at all, never mind through eyecatching civic initiatives) is in rather shorter supply than the evidence of human ability to adapt to climate change.
For example, having Al Gore as a prominent figure of the AGW theory movement for a number of years is enough to make them suspicious. They see him fly in private jets, own multiple humongous homes, make investments that will pay off if things like carbon credits become mainstream, release a movie 9 months after Katrina that promised more and more severe hurricanes that never materialized, etc, etc. He might not be a duck but he sure seems to quack a lot.
The other main denial seems to be things like, "It's cold today - in your face global warming".
I think Michael Mann is giving people far too much credit.