You do know that this has been denied repeatedly by the signers that the petition circulator was somehow speaking for all of them.
What this lengthy and very dated press release says is that the authors consider themselves to be infallible and their list of "consensus" non-climatologically trained "experts" have purer motives than the "deniers."
I challenge you to show me where the facts as they were presented in 1998 have stayed the same since then and also to show me how many times the protocols have been adjusted against how many times the greater number of the skeptics have changed their caution that we shouldn't leap before we look, and I mean look really hard.
You have admitted more than once that there is no easy solution given even the least of the dire scenarios being created and yet you still won't allow that perhaps we should agree to quit calling names and do some serious thinking about what it is we can afford to do.
Half the loudest voices give the impression that they would be happy if half the population of the planet suddenly disappeared tomorrow to reduce the load and yet they still go about screaming that the more reticent among us should act now before some innocent people are forced to move a few feet in the next century.
There is no need to panic and no good can come from it.
I didn't read that:
STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION
April 20, 1998
The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.
They wished to distance themselves from the article enclosed with the OISM petition.
Some had falsely associated the article with NAS, and the NAS Council wanted to clear up the confusion.
As for "dated press release", it refers to the OISM petition, cited in this thread's article.