Here is what they published. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-09.p...

Which notes several cases without cancer links, but others with links "For all the children of the pesticide applicators, risk was increased for all childhood cancers combined, for all lymphomas combined, and for Hodgkin lymphoma, compared with the general population." It also notes there are "there are relatively few studies." So, noting that a link was 'probable' without saying "Yes" or "No" is not making up their minds.

They are basically saying, their is not enough information to declare it safe or dangerous.

Except that they didn't, they said "probably carcinogenic". That implies dangerous.

No, that's not what "probably carcinogenic" means. There is a 5 point scale, yes, likely yes, less likely yes, unstudied, no. It has been studied which removes the unstudied. However, they don't say there is enough evidence to say "Yes" or "No."