Significant efforts have been made in the NLP community to facilitate the automatic analysis of climate-related corpora by tasks such as climate-related topic detection, climate risk classification, question answering over climate topics, and many more. In this work, we perform a reproducibility study on 8 tasks and 29 datasets, testing 6 models. We find that many tasks rely heavily on surface-level keyword patterns rather than deeper semantic or contextual understanding. Moreover, we find that 96% of the datasets contain annotation issues, with 16.6% of the sampled wrong predictions of a zero-shot classifier being actually clear annotation mistakes, and 38.8% being ambiguous examples.These results call into question the reliability of current benchmarks to meaningfully compare models and highlight the need for improved annotation practices. We conclude by outlining actionable recommendations to enhance dataset quality and evaluation robustness.

We introduce MAFALDA, a benchmark for fallacy classification that merges and unites previous fallacy datasets. It comes with a taxonomy that aligns, refines, and unifies existing classifications of fallacies. We further provide a manual annotation of a part of the dataset together with manual explanations for each annotation. We propose a new annotation scheme tailored for subjective NLP tasks, and a new evaluation method designed to handle subjectivity. We then evaluate several language models under a zero-shot learning setting and human performances on MAFALDA to assess their capability to detect and classify fallacies.