You should really read the paper and not just the press release. This line in the press release hides a dirty little secret:
I have and there is no secret. The press release does a good job of summarizing the results.
Of the over 10,000 scientists contacted and the over 3,000 that replied they narrowed down the "climatologists who are active in research" to 79 individuals. The 97% figure represents just 77 people out of those 79.
Now that is a gross mischaracterization of the data. 10,000 scientists were contacted. Their expertise ranged from many disciplines. 3,146 responded. The two questions were asked with 90% and 82% voting "Yes" respectively (2831 and 2579). Out of the 3146, then the list was narrowed down to scientists who were actively publishing and more than 50% of their papers in climate science. That eliminated most of the respondents down to 79 which are basically the experts in the field.
Even if you discard the 97% number, the 90% and 82% are hard to ignore.
I'm amazed that anyone would answer no to either, particularly a "climatologist active in research".
Yet two experts did. There are biology professors like Michael Behe who argue for Intelligent Design instead of evolution based on very little evidence. Thankfully there are in the minority.