Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. But one week prior on September 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II). My advance review of CCR-II shows it to be a powerful scientific counter to the theory of man-made global warming.
Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing dangerous climate change. The IPCC of the United Nations has been remarkably successful in convincing the majority of the world that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically curtailed for humanity to prosper.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. Over the last 25 years, the IPCC became the “gold standard” of climate science, quoted by all the governments of the world. IPCC conclusions are the basis for climate policies imposed by national, provincial, state, and local authorities. Cap-and-trade markets, carbon taxes, ethanol and biodiesel fuel mandates, renewable energy mandates, electric car subsidies, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and many other questionable policies are the result. In 2007, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change.
But a counter position was developing. In 2007, the Global Warming Petition Project published a list of more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs, who stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” At the same time, an effort was underway to provide a credible scientific counter to the alarming assertions of the IPCC.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was begun in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on global warming.
Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.
Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40 scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and weather.
Among the key findings of CCR-II are:
· Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
· The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.
· There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous natural temperature variations.
· The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than 0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have occurred.
The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.
Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate change?
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nick Stokes says:
September 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm
The names of previously observed climatic fluctuations show that they are natural. It is warmer now than during the LIA, naturally. Before that, during the Medieval Warm Period, it was warmer, naturally. Before that, during the Dark Ages Cold Period, it was cooler, naturally. Before that, it was warmer during the Roman Warm Period, naturally. Before that, it was cooler. Before that, during the Minoan Warm Period, it was warmer. Before that, it was variously warmer & cooler. Before that, it was the warmest of the Holocene. Before that, there was the cold event at 8200 years BP. Before that, it was warmer, although not as warm as during the later Holocene Optimum. Before that was the really cold Younger Dryas. Before that, it was warmer & the ice sheets were melting. Before that, there was the 90,000 year-long Wisconsin glaciation, during which the temperature also fluctuated in about the same way as since then, only with much larger swings in amplitude. Before that was the Eemian Interglacial, which was much warmer than our current one. Naturally.
Hence, it is incumbent upon CACA charlatans to show that the warming of c. 1860-2000 was somehow not natural.
This they have not done & cannot do.
Jai Mitchell needs to read more carefully….
Among the key findings of CCR-II are:
Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/sep/10/science-based-rebuttal-global-warming-alarmism/#ixzz2eXTUePoE
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter
Dbstealey,
you have absolutely no scientific mechanism that can explain a “natural” variability that is producing the warming that would constitute a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age. Not solar variability, nothing.
by the way, your steve goddard sea ice graph you posted is so full of holes it made me want to get some ham, bread and mustard. I suggest you check your links before you post them. He understated the 2012 sea ice loss by over 600,000 square kilometers.
The simple fact is that there is no scientific basis within this “science based” rebuttal which only goes to show the extremist right-wing rag that is The Washington Times.
Nick Stokes,
Did the IPCC blame man’s greenhouse gas emissions for most of the Warming between 1910 to 1940? What do you blame the rise in temps (1910 to 1940) on? Please answer both questions. PS Don’t blame coming out of the Little Ice Age as people will laugh at you.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/j/l/warmingtrend.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
jai mitchell says:
“I also note that the article’s author is an electrical engineer with an MBA degree, hardly the kind of credentials for an essay…”
And your credentials are …what, exactly? An EE is a degree in the hard sciences. Unlike your own lack of scientific qualifications, that denotes scientific credibility. So naturally, you revert to the usual ad hominem attack.
Despite asking repeatedly, no one has ever produced verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing that human-emitted CO2 has any measurable, quantifiable effect on global temperature. That idea is based solely on Belief, not on scientific measurements.
The only verifiable connection between CO2 and global temperature shows that ∆T is the cause of ∆CO2 — not vice versa. The alarmist cult started out with a faulty premise, so it is no wonder that their conclusions are wrong. But their egos and their Belief systems do not allow them to admit that they were wrong from the get-go. Thus: jai mitchell.
jai mitchell says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
And yet, there is no evidence or theory regarding the cause of a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age
============
As there is no evidence of theory regarding the cause of the little ice age.
The problem for climate science is they don’t know what caused the little ice age so of course they don’t know why we are in recovery from it. So, since they don’t know, they have no alternative but to blame it on humans. Exactly like the superstitious high priest of old.
What we do know is that the LIA had nothing to do with CO2, yet the climate cooled and warmed substantially.
I see the mention of the sunset of the good old style light bulb. I was told that if you break a CFL bulb you are supposed to call HazMat in California?
Is that true?
“The fact that you’ve given a name to the cooler period (LIA) doesn’t make it any different.”
A bit of a straw man. I think the point is that the current warm period, like the other warm and cold periods of the Holocene, are within a range of natural variation, demonstrably so, neither unprecedented in magnitude or rate of change. Therefore, it is unnecessary to attribute that change, absent some extraordinary evidence, to anthropogenic increases in CO2, particularly when the current uptrend in temperatures began some 300 years ago.
Jai:
Had you bothered to spend even seconds researching, you’d have learned that, contrary to the lies you’ve swallowed hook, line & sinker, the LIA was global.
Mesoamerica:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589404001449
South America:
Villalba, R. (1990). “Climatic fluctuations in Northern Patagonian during the last 1000 years as inferred from tree-rings records”. Quaternary Research 34 (3): 346–60. Bibcode:1990QuRes..34..346V. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(90)90046-N
Villalba, R (1994). “Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the Little Ice Age in southern South America”. Climatic Change 26 (2–3): 183–97. doi:10.1007/BF01092413
Sébastien Bertranda, Xavier Boësa, Julie Castiauxa, François Charletb, Roberto Urrutiac, Cristian Espinozac, Gilles Lepointd, Bernard Charliere, Nathalie Fage (2005). “Temporal evolution of sediment supply in Lago Puyehue (Southern Chile) during the last 600 yr and its climatic significance”. Quaternary Research 64 (2): 163. Bibcode:2005QuRes..64..163B.doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2005.06.005
Inka Meyer, Sebastian Wagner. “The Little Ice Age in Southern South America: Proxy and Model Based Evidence”. Springer Netherlands. Retrieved 2010-02-09
Thompson, L.G., Mosley-Thompson, E., Davis, M.E., Lin, P.-N., Henderson, K. and Mashiotta, T.A. 2003. Tropical glacier and ice core evidence of climate change on annual to millennial time scales. Climatic Change 59: 137-155 (The sainted Lonnie Thompson, no less!)
Araneda, A., F. Torrejón, M. Aguayo, L. Torres, F. Cruces, M. Cisternas, R. Urrutia (2007). “Historical records of San Rafael glacier advances (North Patagonian Icefield): another clue to ‘Little Ice Age’ timing in southern Chile?”. The Holocene 17 (7): 987–98. doi:10.1177/0959683607082414
East Africa:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Geo….29…83J
South Africa:
Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A., Svanered, O. (2001). “A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa”. South African Journal of Science 97: 49–51.
Antarctica:
Kreutz, K.J., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow, S.I., Pittalwala, I.I. (1997). “Bipolar changes in atmospheric circulation during the Little Ice Age”. Science 277 (5330): 1294–96. doi:10.1126/science.277.5330.1294
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/qr/2002/00000058/00000003/art02371
http://waiscores.dri.edu/MajorFindings/MayewskiRes.html
http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/pastmeetings/abstracts00/Das.htm
D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola, V.I. Morgan. “Historical CO2 Records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS Ice Cores”. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn.
M. Angeles Bárcena, Rainer Gersonde, Santiago Ledesma, Joan Fabrés, Antonio M. Calafat, Miquel Canals, F. Javier Sierro, Jose A. Flores (1998). “Record of Holocene glacial oscillations in Bransfield Basin as revealed by siliceous microfossil assemblages”. Antarctic Science 10 (3): 269–85. doi:10.1017/S0954102098000364
Rhodes et al: “Little Ice Age climate and oceanic conditions of the Ross Sea, Antarctica from a coastal ice core record”. Clim. Past, 8, 1223–1238, 2012
Australia:
Erica J. Hendy, Michael K. Gagan, Chantal A. Alibert, Malcolm T. McCulloch, Janice M. Lough, Peter J. Isdale (22 February 2002). “Abrupt Decrease in Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Salinity at End of Little Ice Age”. Science 295 (5559): 1511–4. Bibcode:2002Sci…295.1511H. doi:10.1126/science.1067693. PMID 11859191
Pollack, H. N., Huang, S., Smerdon, J. E. (2006). “Five centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground”. J. Quaternary Sci. 21 (7): 701–6. Bibcode:2006JQS….21..701P. doi:10.1002/jqs.1060
NZ & Pacific Islands:
Nunn, P.D. (2000). “Environmental catastrophe in the Pacific Islands around AD 1300”. Geoarchaeology 15 (7): 715–40. doi:10.1002/1520-6548(200010)15:73.0.CO;2-L
Winkler, Stefan (2000). “The ‘Little Ice Age’ maximum in the Southern Alps, New Zealand: preliminary results at Mueller Glacier”. The Holocene 10 (5): 643–647. doi:10.1191/095968300666087656. Retrieved 2010-06-27
Who made this so complicated?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
The oceans rule the global temperature in the short term. The period of supposed global warning from 1975 to 1998 was a period dominated by El Nino. During El Nino’s the oceans release heat and the atmosphere becomes warmer. From 1999 through now, we are have been in a ENSO neutral state, neither El Nino or La Nina predominates. Global temp.’s have stagnated. In 1977, after suffering through a period of mostly La NIna’s for the past 7 years, the concern was global cooling, but the oceans decided to switch and give us back some of the heat they took.
Now “they” dare say the reason for the current stagnation is because the oceans ate the heat, yet why did the same “consensus” not bother to explain the obvious effect that the 1977-1998 El Nino’s would have on global temp.’s.
Yet we are constantly told of current and worse future catastrophes due us because 1 in 20,000 parts of the atmosphere changed from something to CO2.
I’ll put my money on the enormous oceans rather than 1/20,000.
@Nick Stokes – I suggest you bone up on the null Hypothesis. That would help with your lack of understanding.
One hopes that “Creedence Two” or CCR-II as it’s called here, will not be hidden behind a paywall.
Nick Stokes says:
September 10, 2013 at 5:13 pm
I keep hearing this – we had it for the umpteenth time from Akasofu. But it explains nothing.
==========
temperatures go up and down naturally and have been doing this for as far back in time as we are able to look. there is nothing in the current warming that is outside of what has been observed to be natural variability, so no explanation is required.
Nature varies because variety is the nature of Nature. Otherwise you and I would not be here. Nature would have stopped at algae. Mission accomplished. Science underestimates natural variety because we have no real grasp of infinity. We see 100 years as a really long time.
jai,
“… there is no evidence or theory regarding the cause of a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age that is natural and not compounded by anthropogenic emissions…..”
It’s always amazed me how alarmists cite an absence of scientific understanding of warming as proof it must therefore be human caused.
With climate being so complex there are so many possibilities that it is ludicrous to rule out everything in order to accommodate the fabricated AGW.
Where is your mind?
glenncz says:
September 10, 2013 at 5:52 pm
Heat content of the oceans is about 1120 times that of the air.
‘Nuff said.
jai mitchell says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
That graph of CH4 levels (it would be nice if you’d describe a link instead
of throwing it out willy-nilly) ends at 2000.
Check out http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/08/the-ups-and-downs-of-methane/ for discussion of methane’s own pause from 1999-2009 or so. There don’t seem to be many graphs or discussion about methane since 2010.
That page includes a graph with the obligatory IPCC “projection” from about 2000.
The stall in CH4 levels is probably not well understood, I’ve heard references to reduced flood times on rice paddies and better management of natural gas production. Given the claims that melting in the tundra, methane hydrates in the seas, and all the fracking going on are going to make methane levels soar, I conclude it’s simpler to ignore it for now. It seems a lot of people have concluded the same. Given the monthly updates on graphs for CO2 and temperature, it’s curious CH4 is so neglected.
Tracking CH4 levels, sources, and sinks might be a good project for you, it would even be useful.
Steve Oregon says:
September 10, 2013 at 6:02 pm
The preposterous, laughable (!) hypothesis (not a theory) that CO2 is the main driver of climate change on earth has been repeatedly falsified (in both senses of the term).
Whatever may drive climate change, it isn’t CO2, which is more an effect than a cause.
Just as Galileo falsified the geocentric model of Ptolemy, without absolutely confirming Copernicus’ heliocentric system, by observing the phases of Venus, so too have real scientists long ago, indeed from the git-go, shown CACA false, without necessarily being able to agree on an alternative hypothesis. It could well be that there is no primary driver.
With climate science in at best the toddler stage, we just don’t know yet.
Global warming theory = TempC increase = 3.0C per doubling CO2 = 4.33*ln(CO2ppm)*C-24.8C
Observations = Reality / Real Earth Response = 1.2C per doubling CO2 = 1.73*ln(CO2ppm)*C-10.1C
Theory versus Reality.
Belief System versus Measuring.
[Snip. By now you should know better than to label those you disagree with as “denialists”. — mod.]
Nick,
The point is that temperatures have increased and decreased forever, and we don’t know why. What we know is that these changes before 1860 were not caused by human-produced carbon dioxide, and in the Dark Ages and earlier it also seems unlikely that land use changes could be involved. What this does is slap us in the face with our extraordinary level of ignorance of natural climate cycles. The argument, famously made by Phil Jones after climategate was that he believed human derived carbon dioxide was causing warming, because we can’t think of anything else that could be doing it. That is in the running for the most ridiculous scientific argument I have ever heard. First, it assumes that there are no unknown unknowns (i.e., we have accounted for every single mechanism that can have a significant effect on climate). When stated this way the argument for human derived carbon dioxide as the main driver seems even weaker. There is no other field of science studying a complex system in which this argument would be taken seriously, let alone become a “consensus” position. Until you can give me a plausible theory explaining how earth entered and emerged from ice ages in pre-industrial times, I will not be convinced that we understand enough about natural climate cycles to have any level of confidence about the quantitative contribution of carbon dioxide vs. natural cycles. By the way Jai, I am a “real scientist” (not climate) and I am a CAGW skeptic precisely because the behavior and statements revealed by climategate and by the broader climate science community afterward (e.g., defending “hide the decline”) were so unlike the behavior and attitudes of every professional scientist I know in biomedical research that I was immediately suspicious. It should be noted that there are excellent climate scientists in the world who are not afraid to publish findings that dispute one or more aspects of the consensus position (dozens are cited with abstracts in the Hockeyschtick blog). However, very few papers of this type are mentioned in IPCC reports. I doubt AR5 will be any different. This is yet another reason to doubt the consensus conclusions. Ignoring contrary evidence isn’t characteristic of real science.
fly in the narrative, shoo, fly shoo!
himalayan glaciers old as katmandu
poley bear population growing too.
skip tuvalu, my darling.
jai mitchell says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases
And yet, there is no evidence or theory regarding the cause of a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age that is natural and not compounded by anthropogenic emissions associated with the increase in population and agricultural land use changes during the agricultural revolution in the early 1700s (as well as the wide-scale European planting of the American potato-leading to a population explosion).
American and European deforestation was also rampant at this time and the introduction of coal as a common fuel source began in earnest in the late 1800s, these all contributed to changes in methane (primary) and (some) CO2 levels.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, the Little Ice Age was ended by anthropogenic CO2 and not any natural occurrence. Since the CO2 was 280-300 during that period, what level do you want to control the climate? The beginning of the LIA started without a decrease in CO2 and started with the Great Famine, which rolled into the Black Plague. Is that the optimum climate you REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS want? Oh, yes, and I note a population explosion caused it, also. Shades of P. Ehrlich, do we need to reduce the earth’s population to 450 million? If I recall correctly the only bomb in the “Population Bomb” was Ehrlich’s predictions. Why does he have any credibility?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I also note that the article’s author is an electrical engineer with an MBA degree, hardly the kind of credentials for an essay disclaiming a proven scientific fact that has been known for over 100 years.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Mr. Mitchel a degree snob? I’ve worked with engineers for about 40 years. A very high percentage of those folks were good at math, knew how to handle data and were very adept at finding workable solutions to very complex problems. If Mr. Goreham has done engineering before and after the MBA, I won’t hold that degree against him. However, if you believe the degree is not significant, my terminal degree was a doctorate in organic chemistry (stereochemistry, x-ray crystallography and molecular mechanics). My degrees are, I believe, in something known as a “hard science.” From what I’ve seen of “Climate Science”, I’m not sure much of the research is of the quality to let you out with a Master’s in the school I attended. Besides, I learned long ago that it is not the bright shiny credentials, but what you actually do after you receive them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All one needs to do is look at the actual temperature curves of global temperatures since the little ice age that was created by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, not paid free-market advocates who care not for the actual science but would rather see free market principles unleash the power of unregulated polluters into the world and destroy the lives of your children and grandchildren – as actual scientists clearly state will happen if we do not effect significant changes in our business as usual.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“ACTUAL SCIENTISTS” don’t publish wild doomsday predictions by press release. Know enough about theory, hypothesis and law to understand the difference and what falsifies the first 2. Actual scientists evaluate data with ERRORS and don’t make up some silly error-free plots. The “actual science” of AGW has been falsified numerous times: Hansen’s 1988 predictions for NYC, the ICE FREE ARCTIC that was supposed to happen this year or last year, the continuing rise in the mythical global temperature for the last 20 years that hasn’t happened, Mann’s hockey stick. I’d be really embarrassed at those failures. ACTUAL SCIENTISTS don’t seem to be affected by prediction failure after failure.
I like the idea of being in the pay of the evil free marketeers. I suppose I am, since I work in industry. However, I’ve not gotten my share of the loot for being a AGW skeptic. Besides, I hear the real money, $5 billion/year, is in the trough for those who find AGW. No AGW and the trough dries up.
Deb Rudnick says: September 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm
Not quite. In fact, far from it. The IPCC is (currently) comprised of 195 nations (or so-called “nations”) i.e. governments. Certainly there are some scientists (Myles Allen is one who comes to mind and Thomas Stocker is well on his way to proving himself to be another) who, if asked, may well claim that it is the scientists who constitute the IPCC.
Indeed, many have been known to mistakenly grant themselves the status of “Nobel Laureate” and/or variants thereof – notwithstanding the fact that this is an unearned laurel. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore (also not a scientist in case you were wondering!) and the organization known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Is not extremely ironic that an organization which has given its blessing to conclusions and claims that gave rise to – and continue to feed – the “climate wars” should have been awarded a “Peace Prize” of any kind, let alone a “Nobel Peace Prize”?! But I digress …
While scientists – and others – do participate as “voluntary” members of the “author teams” that produce the “products” of the three IPCC Working Groups, they continue to be paid for their IPCC work by their respective institutions and organizations.
Furthermore, in many instances, they are reimbursed for any expenses they might incur, such as … oh, I dunno … travel to far-away lands and accommodation and meals to support their participation in author meetings. Consequently, while their involvement may well be “voluntary” – and/or even motivated by their dedication to “the cause” – I think you can rest assured that they are not sustaining any significant hardship or deprivation.
It also may well turn out to be inaccurate to claim either that there are “thousands” or that they are from “195 countries”. Consider the report of AR5’s WG1, for example. According to an IPCC “Fact Sheet” for Working Group I, this IPCC AR5 “product” involved:
209 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and Over 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries
The review of the FOD by 659 Expert Reviewers from 47 countries
The review of the SOD by 800 Expert Reviewers from 46 countries and 26 Governments
And the key paper to be “approved” later this month, i.e. the Summary for Policymakers, generated 1855 comments from 32 Governments.
Your math may vary; but to my mind this is a far cry from “thousands of scientists from 195 countries”. It is within the realm of possibility, however, that when similar stats are posted for WGs II and III, they will make up the “shortfall”; but until then, I’m afraid your claim fails.
Who’s #194?