Among papers that state a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW, the argument that climate change is manmade), 97% support AGW. A group of scientists attempted to replicate studies from the 3% of scientific papers that reject AGW, but discovered several flaws and mistakes.

Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook examined 38 peer-reviewed studies that reject manmade climate change and developed an analytical tool to replicate and test the results and methods employed in these studies. Upon replication, the researchers found that the studies suffered from a variety of methodological flaws, with a pattern of common mistakes among the group.

A common issue among the 38 studies was “cherry-picked” information — papers that lacked contextual information or even ignored information that ran contrary to their conclusions. The researchers argue that “the science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny.”