About how many peer-reviewed, published studies indicate human activity is causing climate change?

Question

And about how many studies show that it isn't?

Answer 1

Madhav L Khandekar has developed a list of 68 peer-reviewed papers that question some aspect of the anthropogenic global warming consensus.

By contrast, the latest IPCC report lists over 4600 references, nearly all of which support some aspect of the anthropogenic consensus.

Answer 2

Several hundred studies support mostly man made global warming. Most are pieces of the puzzle, rather than a complete start to finish explanation. That's the way science works, papers build on one another.

There are no peer reviewed studies that disprove global warming, and just a handful (68?) that question some minor aspect of it.

The best listing of the hundreds of studies is at the end of each Chapter in this document:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Chapter 2 may have the best examples of what you're looking for.

This survey is quite likely of interest to you in this regard:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Peiser tried to question it, citing studies he claimed went against mostly man made greenhouse gases. Faced with convincing arguments otherwise, he reduced his claims until only one item is left, which turns out to be a letter to the editor. So the Oreskes study cited above, has withstood serious challenge.

I like to cite one particular study, simply because there is a website with a particularly nice graph, which I have never seen seriously disputed. Here's the graph, from the Source below:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Re the claim that the "hockey stick" has been discredited. That's a lie. There were some statistical criticisms that it was overly "smoothed" statistically. But an analysis by the National Academy of Sciences upheld it as generally correct.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html

Many studies have duplicated it, with more precise statistical methods. Here's a graph of ten of those peer reviewed studies:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Answer 3

To answer your question, the answer is ZERO. No studies have proven anything. Yet.


Time for a reality check.

No one has YET been able to prove that anthropogenic (human) input has had any long-term effect on the global climate. I know that seems crazy, but it's the truth.
Many studies suggest that we have an impact, some studies show that we possibly have influenced climatic change, and a few indicate that we probably can influence global temperature changes.
In science, Probably's, Buts, and Maybe's are only good for one thing: deciding what to research next.
Leading edge research right now is focusing on methods to improve mathmatical modeling. When the rate of improvements in the models over time begins to slow, it will be time to reevaluate all the data. Until then, we're left with suggestions and hints, and this is exactly why you shouldn't assume that there are any answers yet.

Answer 4

It's hard to put a specific number on it as there's no one organisation that collates every report. Globally there have certainly been hundreds of thousands of reports, many of which are very specific in their briefs. There have been perhaps 50 major reports that focus on all aspects of climate change - these reports typically run to 000's of pages and take years to produce.

Additionally a huge number of reports never make it to the public arena as they are privately commissioned by commercial organisations, local authorities, the military, emergency services etc.

Of the major reports, every one of them indicates human activity is causing climate change.

I deal with the type of reports you're referring to and have written and published my own. We also have access to perhaps 100,000 such reports via a database. I would estimate that in percentage terms it's at least 99% that indicate humans activity is causing climate change.

Of the 20 to 30 reports I'm aware of that present a different conclusion, most neither accept nor deny we're changing the climate but make the case that we need more evidence before drawing conclusions.

Answer 5

Hard to say. Funding is slanted towards the man made warming theory. Dispute the study and lose funding.
Jello has got it right. Studies are funded by people with agendas.
Lemmings can believe otherwise.
Non biased research shows both sides of a story.
The 7 percent correct answer shot reveals some extent of liberal indoctrination.
Best answer doesn't mean correct answer.
The UN being behind it sure doesn't help with the credibility.
Let the put downs and name calling begin, as I dare to question the Global warming religion.

Answer 6

There are thousands of studies (peer-reviewed) tha testablish the human causes of global warming.

There are no legitimate sutdies that contradict them.

Answer 7

I'll bet there aren't many peer reviewed studies that refute global warming, like I doubt there are many peer reviewed studies by theologians state God doesn't exist.

Peer review is a poor standard. Who wouldn't believe like minded people can be objective in something they believe?

Remember Mann's discredited 'Hockey Stick' passed peer review.

Answer 8

I've never counted them. I know there are none at this point that dispute it. Why don't you count them and let the rest of us know?

Answer 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcXLFDuAJNE&NR=1

Answer 10

None dispute it and that is all that matters..........