This "opposing view" is of interest as it makes it look that the "Royal Society" has NOT changed it's outlook...The document entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarised by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...."If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science.
...but oh yes there is!
UK's 'definitive voice of science' hopes guide will counter misunderstanding and bogus claims about man-made global warming
The Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific establishment, today publishes its own layman's guide to the science of climate change, in the hope of countering the confusion and inaccurate claims that continue to surround the topic.
The new guide – Climate Change: A Summary of the Science – seeks to cut through the confusion by summarising the degree of consensus and depth of understanding surrounding different aspects of the science of global warming caused by human activity.
The report, written by a panel of prominent scientists chaired by Professor John Pethica, Royal Society vice president, breaks down the subject into three sections: aspects on which there is "wide agreement", "a wide consensus but continuing debate and discussion" and those which are "not well understood".
The document entirely supports the mainstream scientific view of man-made climate change as summarised by the UN's climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In previous years, the Royal Society has lent its weight to joint communiqués on climate change issued by leading science academies around the world, and these have even extended to making policy suggestions, such as calling on world leaders to agree emission reductions at the climate change summit held in Copenhagen in December.
The Royal Society's new report, by contrast, limits itself entirely to the physical science of climate change, and it is careful to lay out every qualification and uncertainty. But Pethica stresses that this approach does not signify an acceptance of criticisms that scientists had overstated their case in the past. "If the report sounds cautious, that's because the IPCC is cautious … There is no change in the science."
Click source to read more!!