Is tomorrow going to be the end of climate change skepticism?

Yes. And then I will have to accept that "Hiding the decline" by using "Mike's Nature trick" is a perfectly valid scientific adjustment to make the data fit the hypothesis.

@Thor...The temperature has gone down since 1998 despite the fact that we've added much more C02 into the atmosphere. Move on.

As a liberal that believes in climate substitute,i've got stopped attempting to cajole the cons on that undertaking.i'm in simple terms happy to comprehend that we are all in the comparable boat and that i gets the final snigger as we slowly deplete or suffocate from loss of breathable air.

If skepticism in the warming of the atmosphere hasn't been ended as of all the information and data currently available by the general public I doubt anything will change the minds of those people. What this concerns is the fact that the world is warming, as it states directly int he article, not about the cause of the warming. I'm sure the majority of people in here on both sides agree that the world is warming regardless of cause as we've seen many state previously. Why then do people continue posting this same study or these same people related to that? Do you agree that the world is warming? What do you base your thinking on? If you agree the world is warming, based on the data and natural evidences, why do you keep talking about this as if it's a viable debate topic? From this post it seems as if you think the world is cooling and anyone who states it is warming is not using pure science. I'm sure we'll get the usual doubters in here though arguing merely for the sake of disagreeing regardless if they agree with the study or not.

I would imagine that this

"It is odd however to choose Dr. Richard Muller who was recently quoted as saying: "Continued global warming “skepticism” is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process.""

Would relate to genuine skepticism and not straight out denial with it's more than 160 different and disproved theories and conspiracies.

With nonsense like it's the Sun, It's volcanoes, it's, Gore, it's the U.N., it's taxation, it's scientists, it's not even happening, Co2 isn't a greenhouse gas, etc etc etc etc etc.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Nothing at all wrong with real skepticism, of course even the genuine skeptic association think AGW is happening

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-28/

and of course they are also attacked by deniers in the comments at the bottom of the piece, that you guys continue to try and call yourselves skeptics is laughable.

For the rational skeptics it will perhaps give them something to consider and for some people it may help them to accept that global warming is a reality but it’s certainly not going to be the end of climate change skepticism.

For the people who like to be thought of as skeptics, but in reality aren’t, it won’t make any difference. Such people have a long established and well documented track record of systematically rejecting anything that goes against their preconceived notion. It doesn’t matter how irrational their behaviour may be, or how compelling the evidence before them is, if it suggests that global warming may be real then it will be dismissed without question.

True skepticism is characteristic of almost every scientist and inquiring mind and this should be encouraged. If science simply accepts something as a given then no progress will be made. It’s by questioning our understanding of things that we’re able to advance and develop new ideas.

Muller never addressed the cause of the warming.

The National Academy of Science was created specifically to advise the U.S. government on scientific matters, and they have been very clear that it time act. We have chosen to not act because some career politicians claim to know more about science than do people who actually have education and do research. If politicians and their argumentative tools would decide that scientists should advise on science, then the silly arguments would have been over a long time ago.

It really is a question of whether Congressmen should claim to understand science, or should defer to the NAS.

No, of course not. More importantly, it will not be the end of lying and propaganda associated with denialism--as long as it's to people's advantage to spread false information and there are people ignorant enough to believe it, your style of "skepticism" will continue.

Ignorant rants about the "scientific method" get very old from people that neither know nor understand science.

No, there will always be idiots