Using the word 'skeptic' is a bit confusing. It's obvious what it means here, but every good scientist is a skeptic, so I don't think it's a good thing to give it negative conotations.

Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."

It's obvious that you cannot have an open mind to the data and not reach the conclusion that humans are contributing to global warming. Unfortunately, the GOP still doesn't agree with this reality. Why politics should decide science, I have no idea, but every year that the GOP keeps up this charade, we move further along to a much warmer climate.

Personally, I don't think our governing structures are up to the challenge. I am sure that we will take steps to mitigate climate change, but I don't think there's much chance that our grandchildren are going to have the climate that we grew up with.

As an aside: I don't like the 'sceptic' spelling of skeptic. I always read it as 'septic'. :/