The story that the Royal Society is going to rewrite its climate change position paper appears to be making something of an impact. Here are a few relevant links:
The Royal Society's statement about the background is here. Apparently the rewrite had been, ahem, planned for some time. There's also this:
Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements, etc. However, the existence of some uncertainty does not mean that scientific results have no significance or consequences, or should not be acted upon.
Roger Harrabin covered the story from a slightly different angle on the BBC's PM show - link here, starts at 39 min. He features some good archive material of the former head of the RS, Lord May, telling everyone the science was settled and there was "no longer room for doubt", which seems to contradict today's statement from the Society. The show also features an interview with the Royal Society's former PR man Bob Ward, a man who is familiar to readers here (which doesn't, however, mean that readers should feel free to vent about him). Bob sounds slightly flustered when pressed by Harrabin. I think those on the warmer side of the debate may be unfamiliar with this sort of questioning.
Bob W turns up again in the pages of the Guardian. He takes issue with not knowing the identities of the 43 fellows who object to the Climate Controversies paper. This is rather similar to my objecting to not knowing who wrote the paper in the first place - I believe the author was Sir John Houghton, but the Royal Society have refused to clarify one way or the other. Bob also takes potshots at some of the GWPF's advisors, although he doesn't explain why this is relevant to a discussion about the Royal Society.