The Royal Meteorological Society? Are you serious? Everyone knows that scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals cannot be trusted, unless of course they are a contrarian on at least some aspect of AGW. You should learn that receiving grant money to study something automatically corrupts, which has lead thousands of researchers to secretly work together to invent AGW in an effort to earn a steady living producing false results.
It's a tricky process finding the truth but if that is indeed your goal stick to reading papers written by those funded via climate denial organizations that receive hundreds of millions of dollars from both the fossil fuel industry and sources cloaked using Donor's Trust and Donor's Capital.
It's a no brainer when you think about it. How can scientists publishing in open, peer reviewed journals ever even hope to steer clear of biased and falsified results? However, you can guarantee the accuracy of papers whose authors are paid by think tanks setup and funded by corporations to support their own political goals. So I encourage you to be skeptical and only trust the work by fellows of Heartland, AEI, etc.