This is incorrect as they make no such claim. The only reference to the National Academy of Sciences is from a letter signed by Dr. Seitz as being a past president of the NAS - which he was,
Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (19341935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (19351936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (19361937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (19371939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (19391941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961),
President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978 ), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973), (Died: March 2, 2008 )
This letter accompanied the paper when the petition was sent to potential signers.
No claim is made anywhere that the paper was "reviewed" by the NAS.
This NAS claim was
refuted by Dr. Robinson,
"
Robinson admits it is no coincidence that the article, which he designed on his computer, looks like one published by the academy. 'I used the Proceedings as a model.' he says, 'but only to put the information in a format that scientists like to read, not to fool people into thinking it is from a journal."
"The Malakoff Science article also includes a picture of the first page of our 8-page article. The photo clearly shows no journal name, no submission date, no submitting scientist (required by the Proceedings), and "January 1998'' printed in a format never used by a journal. The article is also twice as long as permitted in the Proceedings (in which I have published several papers) and has other textual and format differences that I introduced to make it easier to read. It actually never occurred to me that this format complaint would be made - probably because I actually expected more."
further refutation by Dr. Robinson,
"
The review article sent with the petition could not possibly have been mistaken for a PNAS reprint. I have published many research papers in PNAS. I am very familiar with reprint formats.
The PNAS claim originated because Frederick Seitz - past president of the National Academy and past president of Rockefeller University signed a letter that was circulated with the petition. (Dr. Seitz, like everyone else who has actively opposed the "enviro warmers" has been smeared with many false claims.) Also, the first signers of the petition were several rather famous members of the National Academy."
This is incorrect as those are two different papers with the same title,
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (
PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 13, Number 2, pp. 149164, October 1999)
- Willie H. Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas, Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (
PDF)
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon