"Research, conferences and seminars ... rounded up in the literature of course"

Examples? You really are a snob frenchie; not for the masses are the sublime insights of the exalted class of climate scientists, eh?

Are you sure you aren't Clive?

You claim to be a "climate scientist" Anthony Cox.

You certainly haven't turned up to any conferences I attend.
You have not published in any recognised journal - but we've been through that before.

Stick with Gina and the 'Lord', it's easier for you.

C'mon frenchie; just one piece of evidence to support AGW; don't resort to wheeling out the old non-publication BS and the other secret handshake criteria for establishing worth and right to comment on AGW; by doing so you merely confirm what I said.

Go on, just one; for heaven's sake all I'm asking for is one bit of evidence to support your slavish support of AGW; do it tout de suite!

Journal of Climatology (for example) - plenty in the literature to pick from Anthony.

The weight of evidence ... significant component of current global warming due to human activity.

Now, back to your homework - check out enhanced greenhouse effect and the planet's energy/radiation balance.

Btw, I am not Clive.

The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect [EGE] relies on water feedback to amplify the initial but asymptotically declining heating effect of CO2 [which effectively ceases at about 200 ppm, see Hottel and Beers Law].

The argument for the EGE is in TAR at Chapter 6, 1.3.1 and AR4, FAQ 3.1. This argument basically says that initial warming by CO2 increase causes more evaporation and the extra water causes further heating which causes further oceanic release of CO2 and the cycle continues in a runaway fashion.

There are a number of rebuttals of this. The first is an inhouse one by the AGW establishment when Frank et al published his 2010 paper which showed the CO2 sensitivity to warming was much less than previously thought:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

With CO2 sensitivity less that would mean that less warming occurred with each successive release of CO2 from the water feedback.

A more conclusive rebuttal is Miskolczi's finding of a constant optical depth [OD] over the last 60 years; the OD is a measure of the Greenhouse effect and given the assumption of the EGE should have increased with the increase in CO2 over the same period. It hasn't. The reason is that water vapor has fallen while CO2 has increased thus balancing the heating of the CO2 increase:

http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Clouds%20and%20atmospheric%20water%20vapour

More generally the CO2 cycle is a product of the water cycle which in turn is solar dependent as Viezer showed in 2007:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008431.shtml

And I haven't even mentioned clouds which are indisputably both a -ve feedback and forcing to temperature; a fact which has both confused the AGW science and led to considerable obfuscation by AGW science.

Comment?

Anthony, I see your rebuttal and raise you one thousand.

Says it all really.

Now, off to Mr Watts and the 'Lord' with your homework:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf