The facts about the 3% climate denial papers

We always here that 97% of the peer-reviews scientific papers on climate change agree. What about the other 3%? This article shows that  “every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus." What were the errors? "Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate 'curve-fitting'—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing. And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether."