You are still getting caught up over the difference of taking no position versus taking a neutral position. Your argument seems to be that a large number of papers take a neutral position on AGW, which is entirely false. By doing the math, we see that only around 1% of papers take a neutral position. Do not confuse an author not saying that a specific paper endorses AGW with the paper being neutral on it. If the paper doesn't deal with that issue, how could they make a claim one way or another about it? They are simply commenting on what those specific papers state. They surveyed all papers on climate, not just AGW. It should be no surprise that not all of those climate papers address AGW, and no surprise that not all take a position. Hence why the most accurate bench mark is to look at papers that actually address that issue, where 97% are in agreement with the consensus.

A large number take no position. It is no surprise that when contacted, their authors where pretty much split on whether that specific paper supports the consensus, because those papers weren't addressing that issue. They were about climate, but not about human driving forces. If they were, they would have taken a position on it. Your extrapolation that 29% of papers do not agree with the consensus is false. Your are lumping "take no position on" (because they don't address that issue) with "disagreeing with."

To get an idea what most of those other scientists who have not published a peer reviewed paper stating an opinion, I refer you to the following for more food for thought:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/climate-change-statement-from.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full