The more Cook shrinks his sub-groups the larger percentages of consensus he fabricates. He had to create 7 sub-groups. These are the three sub-groups he used. Group 1, (64 papers) explicitly endorsed AGW. Group 2, (922 papers) explicitly endorsed AGW but did not quantify human effects. Group 3, (2,910 papers) implicitly endorsed AGW but was ambiguous of exactly how. 

Only Group 1 (64 papers) explicitly endorsed AGW out of 11,944 papers. The largest sub-groups disagrees with or has no position about AGW. He left out four other groups that did not fit his pre-determined outcome. This paper hardly constitutes a sampling of 100% of climate related scientists globally to arrive at 97% and their consensus.

So, the 97% consensus of scientists globally, explicitly, supporting AGW is a lie, by Cooks own words and "data" and his paper would not pass for a masters thesis in college.