Climate change policy is an emerging field of study. This project conducts a comparative analysis of the range of methodological approaches that are evolving to address issues of uncertainty in climate change science toward developing policy prescriptions. The “methodologies” examined include a variety of quantitative and qualitative approaches involving both top-down and bottom-up policy processes that attempt to enable policy makers to synthesize climate information into the policy process. The meta-analysis selects the highest tier of published research as defined by the impact of the publication measured through number of citations and the Journal Impact Factor. Analysis of the variety of approaches to decision-making in climate policy was conducted by coding the sectors where they were applied; the focus of each on vulnerability, robustness, and/or resilience; the use and application of climate projection data; the use of quantitative or qualitative methods; and whether each links directly to the policy process and provides a clear prescriptive course of action. The meta-analysis provides an insight into the current trends in climate change literature and identifies gaps in existing approaches. The results of the analysis indicate that approaches focusing on theoretical aspects in climate change policies tend to have a wider impact in comparison to application-based research. There remains a predominance of vulnerability studies, followed by studies focusing on robustness, and then resilience. Interestingly, a higher number of studies mention resilience as an important factor in formulating climate policy but do not specify what aspects of resilience. Very few studies include a discussion on theories of decision-making or specify a model of the decision-making agents involved. The analysis highlights areas for future research and development of climate change policy.