I am arguing SPECIFICALLY with OPs claim that "90% of climatologists" believe in AGW. That is based on a flawed study which found that 97% of peer reviewed scientific papers supported AGW (the flaw was that if the paper did not specifically say that AGW was false it was counted as supporting AGW...even when AGW was irrelevant to the topic of the paper).
I think either you or your sources are getting their wires crossed. The study did no such thing. The study in question broke down papers into pro, anti and no discernable position (in the abstract of the paper). The authors of the study tried to contact the authors in this third group. They then put authors who responded pro or anti into those those categories. This still left a large group of papers which were then ignored, the next step would have been to read the papers in full but with over 10,000 papers I understand why they didn't do that. 98% is a reasonable number but should have error bars on it. Since not all research in the field needs to list a position WRT global warming I would be very suprised indeed if the actual number is lower than 90%. Some people have pointed out that if you limit the papers to those published in the last 20 years the number is higher than 98%.
Having reviewed your linked articles, the studies they refer to ALL suffer from selection bias. They rely on surveys of climate scientists who are studying climate change and who published a large number of articles. Yet we know that there have been numerous, at least partially successful, efforts to prevent those who disagreed with AGW from getting published. I am sorry, there is no reliable evidence that 90% of climatologists agree with AGW and it is unlikely to be possible to get such evidence.
If you can produce scientific papers which were rejected by peer review that shouldn't have been then I am all ears. The only thing I am aware that is remotely like this was in the hacked emails where a group of scientists talked about possibly trying to veeto a paper then not actually veetoing that paper.
It was published then very quickly critised for using faulty methodology.
More importantly, such efforts are a waste of time because science is not done by consensus. Science is done by developing a theory and making predictions. If those predictions come true, the theory has value and may be considered true until such a time as studies show it to make predictions that are not true. The proponents of AGW have REPEATEDLY made predictions which have failed to come true.
Science kind of is done by consensus, In that the predictions are made the observations made and the experts come to a consensus on what the data means. For us who are not expert in the particular field knowing that the people who live and breath the stuff all agree about particular details is a valuable hueristic. We can get a better picture by cross referencing what the experts are saying but past that point you really have to become an expert yourself.
Now as for failed predictions I am willing to wager a small amount of money that you don't know what the actual predictions made my mainstream climate scientists are. The media doesn't do a really good job of explaining these (either on the pro or anti side), partly because as you know this stuff is more complicated than one can fit into a 5 minute news segment or a soundbite.