Just to tie things together,

This is one of the best papers from 1998. It lays out exactly how we can tell an anthropogenic warming signal from those of the fossil and proxy record.

Since that time, the predictions of the paper have been verified.

Cross-spectral analyses are performed on the proxy data and the GFDL model data at two different frequency bands (0.02 and 0.03 cycles per year). Both analyses suggest that there is no large-scale coherency
in the series on these timescales. This implies that if the proxy data are meaningful, it should be relatively straightforward to detect a coherent near-global anthropogenic signal in surface temperature data.

And it was and it is.

This paper has 390 citations.

Reported in Science, and two years later, the following paper which refines and verifies the claims of the first was cited 280 times. It goes more deeply into the roles of El Nino and La Nina.

These papers are very readable. The methodology is plainly discussed. No data is hidden. On the contrary, like any good scientific paper, the data is used front and center to make the case. The whole story is right there for anyone to read.

The important point to bring here is that every substantive scientific challenge to our current understanding of the basics of AGW was answered some time ago. If you debate that, read the journal papers. This is not to say that we have all the answers. this is to say that we know what we know, and the arguments of so called skeptics are frequently (and at best) when they are not out and out lying or distorting based on conceptions of climate and questions about it that were resolved in some cases as far back as the 50’s.

The case is here.

We know we are causing AGW. Please read how we know it.