Okay, but 97 or what's now closer to 98% isn't 100% is it? That means there is at least a 2% minority whose papers reject anthropogenic global warming. What of that 2%, how do we know they're not right?
Well, finally the scientific community has gathered up those contrarian papers and analyzed them collectively. Guess what? They're flawed. Sometimes they're just wrong. Some are outright deceitful. Now we have a scientific study of those studies and here are the common flaws that were found:
1. Start with a false assumption
2. Executed an erroneous analysis
3. A neglect of contextual information
4. Relevant physical interdependencies and consistencies were commonly ignored
5. Insufficient model evaluation
6. False dichotomy
7. Ignoring tests with negative outcomes (cherry picking) or assuming untested presumed dependencies
8. Misrepresentation of statistics
9. Many papers included speculations about cycles and presented implausible or incomplete physics
10. Some studies claimed celestial influences but suffered from a lack of clear, physical reasoning
It's important to recall that these contrarian studies dispute the consensus theory but they don't refute it. To refute it is to disprove it. That entails reproducing the impugned research and data to show that it's wrong. Disputing the consensus is tantamount to saying "I don't believe it." All of the consensus science is open to review and challenge. The data are disclosed so that others can reproduce the experiments, research and analysis.
The fossil fuel industry that has trillions of dollars in reserves at stake could easily retain scientists to challenge the consensus science if they believed it was wrong. It would be remarkably easy - and ridiculously cheap - to dispel the scientific consensus if it could, in fact, be refuted. But they're not doing that which raises a powerful inference that they know they can't disprove it.