Simon commented on Simon's question: “David, dismissing Carter and Plimer as "mere opinion" because you disagree with them is exactly the point of my question. Klaus is a different case. What about Lindzen and Spencer and authors of hundreds of peer reviewed papers that challenge the consensus? You would dismiss them in a similarly casual manner?”

Simon commented on Simon's question: “I certainly trust engineers (being one myself) and doctors for the simple reason that it is not credible to compare projections from computer models of a highly complex and chaotic system such as the climate with (a) the comparatively straightforward laws of structural mechanics, (b) the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, both of which are based on direct observation, investigation and decades (even centuries) of laboratory-based experimental testing.”

Simon asked the question: “It is accepted that man's carbon dioxide emissions are causing an amount of warming the climate. However, the magnitude of any future warming is highly uncertain. The IPCC acknowledges that its understanding of a number of key natural climate drivers and feedbacks is "low" or "very low". Why is it, therefore, that the Fairfax press is reluctant to engage with and investigate this uncertainty with an open-minded impartiality, and instead continues to publish articles based on a rigid editorial agenda that "the science is settled"?”