I don't know if he is 'average' or not, but frankly, I'd like to see the skeptical scientists funded so they can study the existing data and see if there is reasonable doubt in terms of the hypothesis. If what the skeptics and contrarians are telling us is true, funding is not available for anyone who disagrees with the consensus that mankind is accelerating natural processes. And if that is true, it would seem to run counter to good scientific research. However, I'm not aware of any solid evidence that funding is not available for skeptical scientists other than claims made by a relatively few number of people, and I've never heard of a scientist who claimed he or she was denied funding to research a solid hypothesis that ran counter to the broadly accepted scientific conclusions. Maybe I'm just behind in my reading.
I personally like the cancer analogy and think it is quite germane taken in context. Expel makes an interesting and valid point about treatment before the fact but I think the perspective is taking Nurse's analogy out of context. Essentially he is discussing politics and economics when Nurse and Delingpole were discussing the science. I think we should be very, very wary of treating the issue of climate change with the equivalent of economic or geopolitical chemotherapy. My opinion is that most skeptics, contrarians and deniers (however you want to label them) outside of the scientific body are trying to debate with science based on their political and economic fears and fail to see the contextual contradictions in their arguments as a result. If Delingpole doesn't 'have time' to study the research papers himself, he's never going to present a balanced and effective argument against the science.