OISM never claimed that it had anything to do with NAS. But the point of your sad "rebuttal" is that they wrote an article that LOOKED like an NAS article.That's only part of it. It looked sufficiently like PNAS style (and it was associated in a letter with NAS because the letter was authored by a past NAS President) that NAS felt it necessary to disavow any possible mis-association.
Furthermore, the number "17,000" signers has been repeated over and over and over and over ... and over and over... and over and over... again by skeptical sources as something significant, skeptics who frequently don't note the lack of QC on who signed. As clearly noted, very few of the signers had any indication of expertise to judge the issue on scientific merit. Thus, they may have felt the accompanying article was authoritative, rather than a skewed view of the issue (which it undeniably is).
The Petition itself also cleverly conflates opposition to the Kyoto Protocol (I would have signed that!) with uncertainties about the scientific understanding of climate change (and with the use of "catastrophic" also grabs a few people who might otherwise admit that something is certaintly happening). So to quote the "17,000" number as an entire group uncertain about the science of global warming is erroneous in the extreme. A lot of the signers may have just read the first paragraph and signed it.
THOSE are the main reasons I have a problem with the OISM petition and any op-ed that quotes it as a resource.
Look.
Robinson prepares technical articles. Singer prepares technical articles. Your assertion that they purposely prepared these articles to bamboozle readers is absurd. They prepared the article in a fashion that they are accustomed.
And the idea that a former President of the NAS is not supposed to present his credentials is absurd.
The Petition is distinctly divided into different categories. It has always been clear to me that 17,000 refers to those with a technical background...and it has always been presented that 2100 of those have an advanced understanding of the subject. The "QC" has indeed been performed on the signatures. It is very curious that your oped hit piece had to refer to 2003 problems (before the signatures were reviewed) to make this ridiculous point. Of course the Petition was hijacked! Are you suggesting that thousands of these signatures are bogus? Does the hijacking by agenda-driven leftists reduce the impact of the Petition? NO!!
The article is NOT skewed. It is very well referenced. It may appear skewed to someone who reads it with a pre-skewed point of view.
"A lot of the signers may have just read the first paragraph and signed it." - cogitator
Who has a skewed point of view? Do you have a reference to back up this statement????