It's called cognative bias, Sumayo (in this case a confirmation bias), and it's a little ironic that you should bring it up as it is commonly linked with conspiracy theorists, and in more than one paper... anthropomorphic global warming skeptics.
The journals I read daily often have papers which discuss the reducing habitat of species x, due to warming. Or the increased bleaching of coral y due to... warming. There are a huge number of variations on this theme, but the general theme is always warming. I am not actively looking for evidence. I would have to actively avoid the evidence in order to miss it... Below is a link to a journal, I just picked one at random. This is not a climate change/climatology/meteorology journal, it's about ecology. Two papers this month concern a changing climate. Every month has a similar quantity. The amount of research surrounding this topic is huge.. do you REALLY think that everyone is just wasting their time?
As I said, I'm not going to debate any anthropogenic influence of this warming, but you would have to either be very naive to deny that the world is in a warming phase (FOR WHATEVER REASON!), or you would just not want to see it.
What makes the 3500 scientists in the survey I linked earlier, wrong? What makes you right because you 'smell a rat'?
If you want to contribute to the (proper) debate, fine. Do some research and publish it.
