Like I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I can't know how "settled" the AGW question is. These odd surveys and polls of "scientists" claiming to "prove" this and that seem so artificial and so obviously manipulated. Those things don't prove anything at all but seem to be what most people wave about as "proof". I'm handicapped simply because I'm not a climate scientist and have no access to the raw data.
Science will, eventually, prove out their theories about this. But, in the meantime, science, theoretically, welcomes questions, doubts and attempts to refute working theories. When I see "scientists" trying to silence questions, doubts or attempts to refute this theory, I wonder.
Our planet is massive and its climate is super complex. Do we understand everything that affects our climate with precision? Of course not. We have guesses and "computer models" that roughly simulate the climate. So far, the computer models of the 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s have completely failed to predict today's climate. New computer models (and faster computers) might be better, we certainly hope so, but that still remains to be seen.
You assert that most scientists working to refute the AGW theory are working for Big Oil -- which, of course, has a vested interest in that point of view. You neglect to mention that just about all scientists working to prove AGW are working for the governments -- which, very much, have a vested interest in proving AGW -- trillions are at stake.
Before you get upset, I'm not actually taking sides here. I want the truth to prevail and I don't want one side to be gagged while the One True View is railroaded through without the concerns, questions and doubts properly addressed. That isn't science, that's politics.
But you are right, the big question after all that is what can and should we do about it? That's very political and that scares me a lot.