Although the Heidelberg Appeal may be open to such an interpretation, it is not what the document said, as the text below shows.

So too did the Heidelberg Appeal, a petition signed by hundreds of distinguished scientists urging against precipitous action.

A Dutch think tank, Heidelberg Appeal, published a report in which it claimed 25 out of 27 accusations against Lomborg to be unsubstantiated or not pertinent.

A version of the Heidelberg Appeal was published in the June 1, 1992, Wall Street Journal over the signatures of 46 prominent scientists and other intellectuals.

HAN selection of complaints made by Lomborg critics, an article collection by Heidelberg Appeal Nederland, supporting Lomborg.

The 'Heidelberg Appeal' has been enthusiastically embraced by critics of the environmental movement such as S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Its name has subsequently been adopted by the Heidelberg Appeal Nederland Foundation, which was founded in 1993 and disputes health risks related to nitrates in foods and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Conservative think tanks frequently cite the Heidelberg Appeal as proof that scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry.

Parts of the Heidelberg Appeal endorse environmental concerns, such as a sentence that states, "We fully subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved."

The Heidelberg Appeal, authored by Michel Salomon and signed by a large number of scientists, is a statement decrying "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development."

He cited as support for this the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal and the 1999 Oregon Petition, as well the opinions of individual scientists that he named including John Christy, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

Moreover the Heidelberg Appeal has been, if not specifically misrepresented, at least broadly interpreted out of context, for example, by The National Center for Public Policy which asserts "The appeal warns industrialized nations that no compelling scientific consensus exists to justify mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts."