Since the claim about what these purported 97% support is vague, the first step is to clearly define what the Hell we are trying to determine scientist might possibly agree on.
WHAT THE HELL is it, EXACTLY, that 97% of scientists are supposed to agree with?
Answer that question first.
NEXT: Define what you mean by a climate scientist. Your local news weather(wo)man who may or may not have a bachelor’s degree in meteorology? Your high school earth science teacher? Dr. Lindzen, who virtually invented the field?
Once you’ve answered those two questions, then you can take a nose count of whom from the set of what we have agreed to call climate scientists agree with what specific propositions.
What hypothesis are the data meant to test?
Is it, "In the absence of human activity, climate is invariant"?
Is it, "Past swings in climate were caused by something else, THIS one is caused by humans"?
Really. What is it?