...has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.

Slippery language being what it is, it seems worthwhile to point out at least some select parts of it just in case it is going by mostly unnoticed. The group ... club.... society... union....whatever, in question, has merely changed it's previous position on global warming; that it is not human-induced. In other words, they still claim there is this thing - global warming, but for now they do not agree on the particulars.

Is it reasonable to expect that any such group.... club....society....union, whatever, seemingly endeavoring to be taken taken seriously for their opinion on large issues, like, the present status of the globe's collective climate compared to what it once was, should readily be able to provide some assurance - not mere words spoken by an increasing chorus but actually verifiable, that they do in fact know of what they speak? Does not a group, any union, on par with the one in question, have the onus to tell us the inhabitants of said globe with assurance what, by comparison, the condition of the globe once was... for instance, how long has the globe in question been manifesting the condition of it's collective climate regardless of the alleged ebbs and flows of it's average temperature? How long has the globe been manifesting a climate with a given temperature - warmer or not, associated with it; 200 years'; 2000; 20,000; longer? Just picking a point for sake of discussion, lets assume 2000 years. Does the group have on staff members of their union that have been around 2,000 years diligently, observing and faithfully documenting accurately the elements surrounding the globe's climate? If not, then is it reasonable to expect that no matter what the group's opinion, it is one that by necessity is dictated by supposition and all whatever other dressings tend to be applied as extensions to such dictates; motive, agenda, speculation and theory and ultimately proposition, especially theory supported by formulaic approaches - like mathematics, that may serve well for simplified purposes for simple minds assembled in sterile environments, like classrooms, board rooms and broadcast studios, but are not equipped nor proven to stand up to the actual test of time rather than a calculated test of time? Is it reasonable expect that in order for a group to be taken seriously when they say they know where the globe's climate is headed, they must provide some credible assurances that they know where it has been?

Conservatively speaking, for the last 4 years I have noted that one specific commercialized branch representative of the group in question - weather forecasters, have been unable to reliably and accurately project the near future weather beyond 36 hours on average. Best, most common example of this is the ever-present 5-day forecast. Anyone can do this, weather mileage may vary, but here in the Northeast "mid Atlantic" I have looked, repeatedly, at one 5-day forecast on any given day,  and have repeatedly observed the projections on that day for days in the near future - 3, 4 and 5. 24 hours later I have looked again and observed the tweaking that had been applied to the original day 3, 4 and 5, then looked again 24 hours later and noted again the additional tweaking that was applied to the original day 3, 4 and 5. I have observed how, when that original day 3rd, 4th  or 5th day arrives, from the view of weather, it often tends to look and feel nothing like what it had been projected to be 72 to 120 hours prior. During the past several months alone, I have also observed how the "live radar" often does not accurately reflect what is happening on the ground. Yesterday this time, various live radars, including the Weather Channel's, had been alerting and alarming and bleeping and buzzing warnings about the violent thunder storm with torrential rains passing over the entire county where I live. Meanwhile, down here on the ground where I live and type at this very moment, the sky darkened, about 30 minutes of sprinkling rain followed, and that was it........?  Is this representative of the group's capabilities in this context? How credible can any such group be? They want us to believe their projections into the future of things they say will happen in the coming decades and centuries when they consistently demonstrate they cannot see much past the next day and a half? Does it not make sense that a group - any group be it scientists, politicians, news people, bankers, oil people, scholars or even regular people or some combination thereof, that consistently demonstrates it does not know where it has been a century ago, or two, or ten, let alone a day or week, but can only offer motive and agenda and mathematics and theory to bear in speculating where they want to go, really does not have much legitimate chance to say it knows with any assurance where it is headed beyond the next 36 hours?