I don't have the time to double check this hypothesis, I'd feel fairly confident that after reviewing the titles of the journals that these articles were published in, that the bulk of the authors are not climatologists, but rather have expertise in other fields such as biology, meteorology, or agronomy. And that their work speculates on the impact of "climate change" on their respective fields, and that they rely heavily on the work of a few select climatologists.
I think it is also very important to remember that we're likely seeing a very large selection bias with respect to what kinds of papers get published. There are very few institutions that will give research money to a scientist who thinks that everything "will be ok". The people who are yelling that we're all gonna die and the earth will be destroyed (unless you give them money), are the types that get funding.
I'm not sure I understand your last point: Usually when you ask for research money, you don't know what the outcome of the study you want to do is.
Besides that, I'm not even convinced that you are right: I would think that a whole bunch of people would be interested in concluding that AGW is not a problem, given the political climate in the US especially. If you could convince everyone that the scientists got it completely wrong, I'm pretty sure even most of them would be relieved. It's just that you can't do that by attacking one argument here and one methodology there. You need to present a comprehensive and consistent framework that shows that AGW is not happening, and if someone did that I'm pretty sure it would be taken seriously. But noone does.
Instead of grasping at straws, why don't you just accept the maximum likelihood solution: most of the papers are correct and global warming is a problem.
Selection bias is not necessarily a bad thing. I bet the articles and papers are also skewed in that they disproportionately aren't written by folks that think that there are large bears on Mars, invisible unicorns in Kansas and that wrestling is the greatest sport ever.
Just a comment on one of your points. On the whole, I think your hypothesis is reasonable.
I think it is also very important to remember that we're likely seeing a very large selection bias with respect to what kinds of papers get published. There are very few institutions that will give research money to a scientist who thinks that everything "will be ok". The people who are yelling that we're all gonna die and the earth will be destroyed (unless you give them money), are the types that get funding.