anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Green house gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable?...
...and right there your argument runs off the rails. The answer to #5 is No. No one can devise a test. Why? Because no one understands the entire system. You can not test a cycle that you can not describe.
But all of the blah blah above doesn't even matter. If it was as simple as you persistently and repeatedly claim, no climate model would ever be wrong. But looking around, we discover that, in fact, not a single climate model has always been right. Not one. Every single one of them has been wrong in its predictions, some of them laughably wrong. Yes, each one of those tiny little factoids you like to write is true. And if the Earth was a bell jar full of CO2 that might matter. It's not. A bell jar full of CO2 is an utterly useless model of Earth when talking about temperatures. It has nothing to do with anything. It's so far removed from reality that it makes a spherical cow look like an optimal model of friction. The real system is vastly more complex. It's so complex that no current climate model contains every aspect of it, as evidenced by their continued failure to match reality, by the (published, peer-reviewed) admission of their own creators.
If and when a model successfully predicts half a century to within the commonly accepted rate of statistical significance, we will know the model is a reasonable simulation of reality. Predicting next year or next decade is not enough: that's just weather. Until then, they're just spitballing. Unless and until the model meets the commonly accepted evidentiary standards of science, it's neither complete nor worthy of consideration as a guide for public policy, especially when some of the public policy proposed on the basis of unproven models will actively harm a very large number of humans. Possibly all humans everywhere.
Perhaps before you advocate actively harming each and every living and future member of the human race, you should have a more accurate model.