Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Anybody can judge for themselves if it looks like a published peer-reviewed paper or not.
Now: Here's the petition statement with my agree/disagree positions in italics:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment (disagree), hinder the advance of science and technology (agree), and damage the health and welfare of mankind (agree)."
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere (agree) and disruption of the Earth's climate (agree). Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. (agree with caveat: increases in CO2 could also cause many detrimental effects for other plant and animal environments of the Earth)."
If I evaluate this statement as written: in complete honesty based on its wording, I would say that it is accurate and I would sign it. I've never believed that the Kyoto Protocol is useful; it would do virtually nothing. The use of the words "catastrophic" and "disruption" render the statement accurate. Had the sentence read this instead:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause measurable warming of the Earth's atmosphere and noticeable alteration of the Earth's climate" ...
I would strongly disagree with it.
As for your statement:
The Petition Project is valid documentation in the scientific community that there is not a concensus on human induced global warming.
I also agree with it. However, I also agree with this letter:
The State of Climate Science - October 2003
and I will point out that consensus of the climate science community is a lot different than the consensus of the "scientific" community.
I agree. The climate science community would have its funding cut off in a second if it admitted to Congress that human induced global warming is a farce.
Bigger potential disaster = More government grants
The unfunded (and thus independent) scientific community is in a position to provide an unbiased view of the subject.