I'm reminded of Feynman's famous anecdote about the Millikan oil drop experiment: Millikan underestimated the charge of the electron, and over the ensuing years, subsequent measurements slowly but surely converged on the correct value.
Why? Because experimenters who got the correct value figured it must be too high, and ran the experiment again until they got a more-erroneous value, one that was nonetheless higher. Eventually it worked itself out.
But climate modeling isn't measuring something objective and static like the charge of the electron. It's prediction. I'm afraid that the incentives are to credit models that predict less warming just a bit more than those which predict more; the expected effect would be that the predicted warming effect would only slowly approach the more dreadful reality.
Please note that I'm not calling climate science a "Cargo Cult", as Feynman put it; I accept the basic premise of anthropogenic warming on first principles, and see that historic measurements (not to speak of recent ones) show a warming trend. There is cause to be extremely concerned.
Nonetheless, it would be surprising if climate modeling, which is inherently inexact and involves irreducible guesswork, didn't drift toward the less alarming, due to similar social forces to those identified in Feynman's essay.
You're not actually saying anything of merit here. Flipping the sign on your paragraphs requires almost no work to get a meaningful result (which doesnt contradict known facts). You've made an assertion (climate models are likely to overpredict warming rather than underpredict) and handwave at some random shit that makes it sound nice. The actual assertion has zero argument behind it.