You are totally correct. The problem goes both ways. One camp will say there is significant disagreement on this issue therefore we need to act in a certain way

You are totally correct. The problem goes both ways. One camp will say there is significant disagreement on this issue therefore we need to act in a certain way. While the other side will say the scientists all agree so we have to act another way. But you have to be very specific about the claims you're make when you say scientists agree or disagree on a matter. You also cannot extrapolate even slightly when you do. For example you have made some very specific claims about the climate change consensus. But people often simply say X% of scientists agree on climate change, without defining what they mean about climate change. All of this is also done to support a given course of action. Those courses of action only make sense with a very specific model of climate change. Often a model that is not totally accurate or agreed upon. Then they often incorrectly quote the scientist. Such as Al Gore's famous prediction “Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” When Dr Maslawski was not predicting anything as dramatic. In the other camp you have appeals to Freeman Dyson. But he does agree that man has altered the climate. He simply doesn't think drastic action is required, and that we will be able to counter its impact. Not surprising from the guy that came up with the ideas to harvest the entire energy output of the sun. The details matter and the appeal to authority that all the scientists agree with me is not as good as an argument on the facts.