Which peer-reviewed papers argue climate change is not primarily human-caused and who authored them?

1. What the peer‑review record actually shows: almost unanimous attribution to humans

Comprehensive literature surveys find that the overwhelming majority of peer‑reviewed papers endorse the conclusion that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. For example, multiple consensus studies and a large 88,125‑paper survey conclude that more than 97% — in some analyses >99.9% — of relevant peer‑reviewed studies attribute recent warming mainly to human emissions ^{[1] [2]}. Major synthesis reports and state‑of‑the‑climate reviews likewise present human‑driven greenhouse gases as the fundamental driver of observed changes ^[3].

2. The small minority: who publishes skeptical, non‑anthropogenic attribution papers?

Reports and literature reviews document that a tiny fraction of peer‑reviewed papers contest anthropogenic attribution. Some named individuals historically associated with contrarian or attribution‑skeptic positions appear in the small set of papers identified by consensus studies; media coverage has highlighted figures such as Roy Spencer and John Christy as authors of several papers counted among that minority in earlier surveys ^[4]. Broader listings and watchdog sites track peer‑reviewed papers by contrarians and catalog common skeptic arguments ^[5].

3. How the mainstream community treats those papers: scrutiny and rebuttal

Mainstream climate science frequently examines and tests arguments that downplay human causes. Journalistic and scientific reviews note that many contrarian claims have been repeatedly challenged, that some rely on outdated studies or non‑peer‑reviewed sources, and that cherry‑picking or methodological flaws are common criticisms aimed at those papers ^{[6] [7]}. The National Academies and other expert bodies have responded to policy reports and critiques that revive debunked arguments by restating the strong evidence for human‑caused harms ^{[6] [8]}.

4. Motivations and visibility: why a few skeptical papers get outsized attention

Analyses show a disparity between scientific authority (citation impact) and media visibility: contrarian scientists tend to have lower citation impact but higher media profiles relative to their scientific influence, which helps their papers and viewpoints receive disproportionate public attention ^[9]. Historical and sociological studies link organized political and industry efforts to amplify skepticism because of the economic stakes tied to fossil‑fuel regulation ^{[10] [11]}.

5. Types of scientific arguments used by non‑anthropogenic attribution papers

Skeptical peer‑reviewed work often invokes alternative forcings (solar variability, natural cycles, aerosol uncertainties) or challenges to climate sensitivity estimates; some papers focus on suggested underestimation or overestimation of aerosol effects or regional variability ^{[6] [12]}. Mainline evaluations find these hypotheses unable to account for the global, multi‑indicator pattern of warming once all lines of evidence are integrated ^{[2] [3]}.

6. Limits of the provided sources and what they do not say

Available sources document the scale of consensus and name categories of contrarian authors and topics, but they do not provide a comprehensive, sourced list of every peer‑reviewed paper that argues natural causes predominate nor an exhaustive roster of authors of those papers; specific paper‑by‑paper attribution lists are not found in the current reporting provided here (not found in current reporting). Readers seeking names and citations of individual skeptical papers should consult the supplementary materials of consensus surveys or dedicated catalogs of contrarian publications referenced by reviewers ^{[5] [1]}.

7. Bottom line for readers weighing claims

The peer‑reviewed record overwhelmingly supports the view that human greenhouse‑gas emissions are the primary driver of recent climate change; a very small fraction of peer‑reviewed papers argue otherwise, and those have been subject to intense critique and lower citation impact, while being amplified in public debate through media and political channels ^{[1] [9] [11]}. For a reliable assessment of the science, rely on synthesis assessments (IPCC, National Academies, major state‑of‑the‑climate reviews) and large systematic literature surveys rather than isolated papers highlighted outside that broader context ^{[2] [3]}.