You know better, they are incompetent idiots.
Which has to be true if you are correct.
you agree  thats put that one to bed then.
i do admire your blind faith and the way you continually edit your replys to make them look better........ you do realise how that looks ?
some very brief digging.
according to the Society, "Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect - there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements"
but recently a quote from Lord May "I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over."
above quote ref: BBC News - Harrabin's Notes: Getting the message
Let the tempest rage
Forty-three brave Fellows of the Royal Society of London have challenged the Societys notoriously uncompromising pronouncements in support of the man-made global warming hypothesis. In breaking this news, the BBCs Roger Harrabin quotes one of them as saying:
We sent an e-mail round our friends, mainly in physical sciences. Then when we had got 43 names we approached the Council in January asking for the website entry on climate to be re-written. I dont think they were very pleased. I dont think this sort of thing has been done before in the history of the Society. But we won the day, and the work is under way to re-write it. I am very hopeful that we will find a form of words on which we can agree.
Those points have been addressed in earlier posts.
There is still debate over the exact levels of affects, but that man has affected climate change is the consenus of opinion, your own post links to an article showing even many skeptics agreeing to this.
The arguments are not as you present them to be.
There is dissent, but it is in the style of presentation and the over simplification for example. There is upset at the way members have phrased comments and positions.
I understand the conflict, it is much like the debate on religion and belief. To be purely scientific one must take an agnostic approach, but it it is insulting to anyones intelligence to have to listen to someone use that honesty to miss represent position of say creationism.
I know about imaginary numbers, but I also know enough not stupidly contradict the statement that under normal circumstances there are no negative squares when discussing it with non mathematicians for practical purposes.
The arguements are mainly over such trivialities, yet you seem to be trying to take that out of context and use it to dismiss climate change and the reasonable assumption of mans affect upon it.
It still does not qualify any individual to assume they know better, especially someone posting on an internet forum.
That you know better than the Royal Society on any matter of scientific consensus is plain and simply silly.
It matters not what articles, blogs or anything else says.
I don't have faith.
I edit my posts because often I start with a stream of conscience and then tidy it up, rather than sticking with what ever first pops into my head.
I use reason and logic.
Work out what are the best and most reliable sources of intelligence for any given situation.
Base decision on that information.
Even if that source is potentially compromised, if it is the best available, to choose to use a less reliable source is irrational if one is to have to make a choice.
Fault that please.
so your only crutch in this whole arguemnt is what the royal society thinks, i just put a hole in that by pointing out that not everybody even in there is in agreement with there statements and yet you continue the ridicule, im done on this thread as i said i dont like argueing on the internet, especially with somebody who is as pompous as yourself and your closing statement
"That you know better than the Royal Society on any matter of scientific consensus is plain and simply silly.
It matters not what articles, blogs or anything else says. "
is amongst the most ridiculous of the drivel you spout.
I'm not the one claiming to know best.
I know my limits with climate change and scientific analysis even though I am a qualified scientist myself.
I am not remotely qualified enough nor in the fields required to dare to believe I have a better understanding of the situation than the consensus of the Royal Society.
40% Could be in disagreement, but if 60% are, and they issue a statement accordingly, only someone that is unbelievably smart, or deluded enough to believe they were smarter and better informed would disagree.
What on this earth makes you believe that you personally have a better grasp and better ability to analyse all the potential sources of information, opinion and data ?
Exactly what criteria makes you the best source of analysis ? I mean your processes for establishing validity, credibility and consensus must be better than anyone elses.
You really believe you are a better source of analysis.
Is that not laughable ? I would say potentially bordering on the egomaniacal.
Bottom line, I think you want to believe in climate change conspiracy. It makes you feel special and with a privaledged to be one of the non deluded ones.
A bit like belonging to a cult, because I can't really believe you suffer from a mental abhoration thinking you are smarter that the Royal Society members and it's statements.
Calling someone pompous for pointing out that it is potentially riddiculous to consider yourself a better source of information on science than the National Accademy of Science. 
Maybe you should just stop trying to argue with people on the internet then, since you aren't very good at it.
You are not much different from someone that believes they can manage a national football team better than the incumbant.
Your complete lack of years of football management at a national and international level seem not to be a hinderance to your view.
In all seriousness, the argument against man made climate change, unless delivered by an expert is pure nonsense.
It doesn't matter how you twist it, you can not claim to be a better source yourself without qualifing it so.
I can not qualify myself, so I must differ to the best qualified scientific source, not just any source I prefer, or one that suits what I think.
Even with problems, the Royal Society is still a better source than an article on the internet or your own analysis. It still remains the best source for non experts.
Get a room .Some quality keyboard warrior action going on here.
It seems to me that neither of you are going to change your viewpoints so i'd just save the fingers personally.
From reading the posts it doesn't seem that i'm personally qualified to talk on this matter as all I have is a view on the subject and i'm not some form of "climate change expert".That said, my view is that the climate is changing, it's the natural cycle of things and the human race is only having a small (if any) effect on things.