Actually, Eddie, @beaglelady is right on the 97% attribution to anthropogenic causes among climate scientists. That's what their published models show, and that has become the consensus in that neck of the scientific woods.
The disagreements occur along the axes of timing, severity, and impact. Will sea levels rise by 30 cm or 3m? Will temperatures rise by 0.5 degrees C. or 3 degrees C. in the next 200 years? To what extent will devastating hurricanes make landfall more frequently--10% or 100%? Those are hard questions to answer, which of course makes the political considerations harder. How can you fashion a policy in the face of such uncertainties?
Unfortunately, some folks like the incoming President of the USA have proclaimed that the climate scientists are propagating a Chinese hoax, allegedly in an attempt to cripple Western economies. Yet you seem not to have noticed, Eddie. You direct your fire at the climate scientists who think that the odds of devastating consequences are high enough to push us in a direction of prudently mitigating the risk. Yet the folks who make the most outrageous claims in the debate--the vast majority of the ruling party in the USA, for example--seem to completely escape your attention. Your extraordinarily one-sided bias in describing the controversy seems quite remarkable, coming as it does from a trained philosopher. I confess I am puzzled.
That NAS member is not a climate scientist; perhaps you were not aware of that.