Raycom's demand for a single paper which "proves" climate change suggests that Raycom doesn't understand how science actually operates. There are hundreds if not thousands of published papers dealing with the many aspects of climate science, and they are actually quite easy to find - if you want to. But to try to assist, here's a reference to one paper (Solomon et al), and to a statement by the Geological Society of London. This is not a research paper as such; it is a position paper from a major scientific institution, and (read it through to the end) it has copious references to research papers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632717/?tool=pmcentrez
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/policy/policy_statements/climatechange

"Climate change" does not need "proving", as it is a natural process which has been going on since Earth's beginning. It is the AGW hypothesis that needs to be proved.

There is abundant compelling scientific evidence that invalidates the IPCC's hypothesis that human greenhouse emissions (especially of CO2) will cause dangerous global warming. For references to some eight tests of the hypothesis of dangerous AGW, see end-note 228 on pp286-288 of Robert M Carter, "Climate: the Counter Consensus", 2010, published by Stacey International. (End-note 228 takes up 3 pages of fine print, and is thus too long to be quoted here.)

The references provided by Nicco do not contain scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused measurable global warming.

The paper by Solomon et al reports on simulations carried out with climate models. Because the scientific understanding of factors influencing climate is far from complete (climate science is not settled), the models fail to represent complex natural climate behaviour. Diagnostic testing of the IPCC climate models by independent scientists, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and others, has confirmed that the models consistently failed. Consequently, the climate models cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and their projections can be regarded only as speculative.

(Cont.in following post)

(Cont. from previous post)

The position statement by the Geological Society of London asserts that "it is not possible to relate the Earth’s warming since 1970 to anything recognisable as having a geological cause (such as volcanic activity, continental displacement, or changes in the energy received from the sun)" and that " it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise ".

The 2007 IPCC Report cited over 18,000 references, but not one contained scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change. The strongest endorsement that the IPCC could give in its 2007 Report, was the assertion, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Alan Carlin's 2011 paper, "A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change", accessible at
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/4/985/pdf
neatly sums up at p 992 the assertive, pseudo-scientific thrust of the IPCC reports: "The various UN IPCC reports broadly argue that the authors cannot think of any reasonable source of global warming other than the increasing level of some GHGs (greenhouse gases), so that must be the cause. There are a few exceptions, such as large volcanic eruptions, which they agree may influence global temperatures, but they do not believe that the warming can be attributed to most other natural causes such as solar or cloud cover variability, which they view as being of minor or little importance in influencing climate."

Raycom, splitting hairs, says that climate change needs no "proof" because it is happening anyway - but he wants "evidence" in a single scientific paper that human activites affect climate. Once again, this demonstrates that Raycom doesn't understand how science operates. There are hundreds if not thousands of published papers on all aspects of human influence on climate. Here, for example, are two references:
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full
http://www.biogeosciences.net/5/1601/2008/bg-5-1601-2008.pdf

What is baffling is how Raycom can quote the Geological Society,whose characteristically cautious statement nevertheless confirms their view that human activity affects climate, as if it meant the exact opposite. It seems that Raycom has made his decision, and nothing is going to change it. It would be nice if he were right in his views (no one actually wants disaster) but the science is against him.