Hello there! First, I need to point out that you're completing misrepresenting Miles here. As he says on page 72:

The argument that the tophet was some kind of cemetery for children is undermined by the fact that the ratio of children's burials found in cemeteries in Punic Carthage correlates well with comparative evidence from elsewhere in the ancient world. In fact, the lack of recorded remains may well be the result of archaeologists simply not recording small and often badly preserved children's bones. Contemporary Greek writers thought that the Carthaginians were performing child sacrifice, and the archaeological evidence means that their claims cannot merely be brushed aside as anti-Punic slander.

Miles does not and cannot use the "Roman propaganda" argument, because very few Roman sources actually mention the practice! As Miles correctly notes, references come mainly from Greek accounts. But on the same page, he makes what is perhaps the most compelling case for the practice child sacrifice in Carthage:

In inscriptions incised on the steles, Carthaginian fathers would routinely use the reflexive possessive pronoun BNT or BT to underline the fact that their sacrificial offering was not some mere substitute, but a child of their own flesh. One of many such examples from the Carthaginian tophet makes the nature of the sacrifice explicit: 'It was to the Lady Tanit Face of Baal and to Baal Hammon that Bomilcar son of Hanno, grandson of Milkiathon, vowed this son of his own flesh. Bless him you!'

Miles thus concludes that "during periods of great crisis the Carthaginians and other western Phoenicians did sacrifice their own children for the benefit of their families and community..." Now, you've asked what the consensus is among historians; but I must emphasize that much of the controversy on this topic has come from anthropologists and scientists, many of whom do not really engage with the historical (literary and epigraphic) evidence. Consequently, Jeffrey H. Schwartz and others caused quite a stir when they published the article "Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants" in February 2010 (link here with abstract), arguing instead that the Tophet was merely a cemetery for infants who had died of natural causes. A recent study, however, has overturned their conclusions. According to P. Smith, G. Avishai, J. A. Greene, and L. E. Stager, "Aging cremated infants: the problem of Sacrifice at the Tophet of Carthage," Antiquity 85 [2011], 859-74:

The age profile of the Tophet infants is markedly different from that expected in the case of death from natural causes. But other factors also distinguish the Phoenician Tophets from regular cemetery populations. First, they contain the cremated remains of young birds and/or ovicaprines that were treated in the same way as the Tophet infants and interred, either separately or together with infants. Second, whereas the use of cremation versus inhumation varied over time in the Phoenician cemeteries from Carthage and elswhere [...], cremation appears to have been consistently used in the Tophets. Third, funerary practices in the Tophets differ from those accorded infants buried in the regular Phoenician cemeteries where infants were rarely cremated even when this was common for adults and older children.

Smith et al., analyzing the same material as Schwartz et al. but apparently taking into consideration various overlooked factors (I'm not an expert on these things, so forgive me for any vagueness), concluded that most of the remains belonged to infants who had perished well after the average period of death by natural causes. Moreover,

if the Carthage Tophet represented a locale set aside for infants dying of natural causes, one would expect that the smallest infants, identified as foetal on the basis of size, would be more frequent than older infants. This is clearly demonstrated in the roughly contemporary Kylindra cemetery on the Greek island of Astypalaia that was in use from 750 BC to the first century AD. Here, over 2000 infant inhumations, each buried in its own clay pot, have been uncovered with ages ranging from 24 gestational weeks to two years, with a mean age of 36.7 gestational weeks. Similarly, the age distribution for infants from the Late Roman cemetery at Kellis 2 includes a high frequency of foetal-sized individuals. These mortality patterns are significantly different from that seen at Carthage where our study [...] indicates that very few infants could be classified as foetal-size.

And unlike Schwartz et al., Smith et al. rightly point out that the physical material is merely "another link in the chain of evidence--funerary practices, texts, iconography--that supports the interpretation of the Phoenician Tophets as ritual sites set aside for infant sacrifice." So to sum up, the literary, epigraphic, and possibly the material evidence all confirm that the Carthaginians participated in ritual infanticide. There will always be controversy, of course, but it ultimately doesn't impact our overall understanding of Carthaginian history.

I apologize for any typos and errors and general incoherence; it's nearly 2:00 AM where I live, and I'm very tired! I hope this answers your questions! :)