The Doran paper is not the source of the claim. This is the article by Cook et.al. that is: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
Actually there have multiple poorly done studies, all with severe selection bias and/or other fallacies, which have been published claiming the fallacious consensus (some 97%, some less).
As far as I can tell, the first was Oreskes in 2004, which claimed 75% consensus that humans affect climate. Duh!
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
This was followed by Doran et al in 2009:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140206053710/http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
And then Cook et al in 2013:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
And i believe there may have been others, but none show a legitimate, non-biased conclusion of such high consensus.
There have been even more papers published debunking the 97% consensus claim, but, for some reason, much of the corporate media and leftist/globalist/alarmist websites have failed to publicize these!
But here are just a few of the references debunking the 97%:
The 97 Percent Solution | National Review
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics