The Australian is Rupert Murdoch's treasure. He began it to show that the established state-based papers weren't doing trheir job properly, and it took over 15 years to become profitable. So one might think that its editorials are somewhat representative of Rupert's own views.
Ian Musgrave has a couple of articles that show fairly conclusively both that the paper is becoming firmly anti-science (as all good conservatives must be these days, it seems), especially with respect to climate change. His first post discusses the ways the distinction between facts and belief are smeared by conservatives. His second discusses how "skeptics" run together the lack of certainty in science with reasonable suspension of belief. I strongly recommend you go find out from Ian (to whom birthday greetings!) how scientists are better grounded in the real world than these egregious "skeptics".
[And what the hell is Phillip Adams doing still writing for these people?]
Phillip enjoys being a thorn in the side of the conservative readership. And despite his leanings, he wasn't beyond being friends with people like Kerry Packer.
"... scientists are better grounded in the real world than these egregious 'skeptics'."
Surely you are aware of scientists who are skeptical of a number of theses subsumed under the "climate change" rubric. Is their skepticism "egregious?"