I don't think you are going to get a simple, straight answer from anybody. One side, the scientists, are scientists and therefore always qualify their statements, for the simple reason that they want to give correct answers to some very complex questions, and the other side is not interested in the truth or correctness of what they say, they just want to make it impossible for the lay person to understand things enough to realise that we need to take action.
Try to step a little bit back from what you read in the papers and hear on TV and look at how the two sides present things.
The scientists present their data, they present their methods, and they tell you why they reached their conclusions. They also tell you which things they are not sure of and they quantify the uncertainty of their results, which is why you never hear simply that humans caused this, but instead hear that it is '95% certain' or something like that. The reason for doing it this way is that it then allows others to check the validity of your data, methods and conclusions - in principle everybody can do this, but of course, most people won't be able to; but as a layperson, you can still observe this process, and you can get an idea about the validity of the science simply from whether there is are other scientists that refute or support it. Another thing that tends to indicate sound science is that scientists don't keep repeating the same old mistakes over and over - they move on, they admit their mistakes, they correct their methods etc - which is why you hear that actually the historical data were wrong in such and such ways, or the models didn't take this or that into account.
The climate-deniers, on the other hand, keep bringing up claims that have already been adequately refuted, as if they either don't understand or simply don't care; after a while, as a scientist, one gets utterly weary of having to address the same falsehoods and simply start ignoring them - after all, reality goes on regardless of what anybody says.
