97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
A May 2013 piece posted at PopularTechnology.net examines the paper by Cook et al.
A May 2013 piece posted at PopularTechnology.net examines the paper by Cook et al., titled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," which at the time of its publishing was being touted as proof of a "scientific consensus" that climate change is both man-made and a problem.
The Popular Technology authors debunk this by personally contacting a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the report by Cook et al. (2013) and asked them if their papers were accurately represented. Craig Idso, Nils-Axel Morner, Nicola Scafetta, and Nir J. Shaviv, for example, had papers of theirs that were categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as either implicitly or explicitly endorsing views of anthropogenic global warming, or sometimes not stating a view at all, when in fact each of them disagreed with those characterizations. This finding calls into question the methodology of Cook et al. (2013) of characterizing the entire content and/or intent of scientific papers merely by the auditing of certain words contained in the abtracts, while also demonstrating the lack of reliable evidence of a so-called scientific consensus over climate change.