Your demands for citations are cute. If they're not in the right format, you won't read them. I'm sure that will make them go away.
To illustrate, that we've seen both kinds of predictions, and that the climate science has a long way to go to establish its credibility. These cooling papers came after Arrhenius, did not they?
Again, we can find contrarian research published about plate tectonics decades after it was accepted science. The existence of papers is not an argument for their credibility.
Arrhenius' first paper on the subject of warming is here. His prediction was about 4-6 degrees per doubling of CO2, with greater effects at the poles. That's on the high end of current estimates, but given the amount of hand-calculation he had to do, it's still a pretty impressive result.
Most of the early work on climate change was proving that it was possible for the climate to change at all, and as you can see in Arrhenius' paper, they mostly deal with the planet in an equilibrium state, and don't account for ever-increasing levels of CO2. One early attempt at modeling the globe in order to make these sorts of predictions was Hansen et al, 1988. He overestimated warming by about 15-25%; this article gives a post-mortem on his predictions. Essentially, using the same model with one slightly different physical constant reproduces the temperature trend far more precisely. An earlier study (Plass 1956) predicted a rise of 1.1 degrees C per century, assuming 1950s emissions levels. Warming since the 1950s has been on the order of .8C, so his prediction was something of an underestimate. Sawyer's prediction in 1972 was .6C by the year 2000, which was much nearer the mark.
However, you're also reversing the burden of proof. Basic physical laws suggest that a higher partial pressure of CO2 will warm the Earth, and simple laboratory experiments show a strong positive feedback from H2O.
Great! And this was all known this for decades (if not centuries), right?
The laboratory experiments on the infrared absorption of various gases date back to Tyndall (1859), and general radiative laws derived by Boltzmann (1884). A more specific overview of radiative forcing effects can be found in Myhre et al, 1998, if you're interested. So for the general idea that CO2 affects the temperature on Earth, you can look to any of the above for confirmation, or grab an IR camera and take a photograph.
So if CO2 affects the global temperature, and CO2 is measured to be increasing (which presumably you do not dispute), then wouldn't it be obvious that temperature must also increase? Not so fast! The absorption bands of CO2 and H2O overlap, and the atmosphere is so full of water vapor that it periodically precipitates. Clearly anything CO2 could do, H2O must already be doing, right? Bzzt. The flaw in this thinking is that because H2O precipitates out before it reaches the upper atmosphere and CO2 does not, allowing the latter to build up in the upper atmosphere (Kaplan 1952). Specifically, it extends the CO2-rich layer further out into space. There are a couple more details about where emission happens at what probability for a given photon of a given energy, and how many times it can expect to hit something on its way up, but again, your IR photograph should tell you that the mean free path is pretty short. This paper gives an overview of Earth's radiative balance.
I don't have to offer my own theory — because I do not seek to convince and/or compel you to alter your way of life. You seek to do that to me, so the burden of proof is on you.
I don't really care what you do, and whether or not the Earth is warming is not actually subject to your opinion. The burden of proof is on those who are challenging the accepted facts. And in this case, speculation is fine, we don't need a formal theory, just whatever you imagine to be true. There are a fairly short list of things that would falsify AGW; we might be able to enumerate them.
* Finding a mechanism which transfers heat to space, other than radiation.
* Finding that there is no greenhouse effect.
* Finding a negative feedback which would (e.g.) strongly increase albedo.
* Finding that CO2 does not build up in the atmosphere.
Another rather less consequential disproof would be if one were able to show that, while CO2 levels are rising, they are not of anthropogenic origin — ditching the 'A' in AGW. You may notice that it's not enough for AGW to be inaccurate. In order to falsify it, there must be some contradictory observation. Newtonian gravity was known to be inaccurate, but it was not disproved until Einstein's predictions were verified. If AGW is inaccurate, then it could be of greater or worse effect than predicted, and this is also true if there was some sort of decades-long global conspiracy fudging numbers. What needs to be shown is that the underlying physical laws are untrue: a vanishingly small probability at this point. The part that is "settled science" is that changes in CO2 result in changes of Earth's equilibrium temperature. How long it takes to get there and the exact degree of sensitivity are still relatively open questions, but the properties of atmospheric gases aren't really open to dispute, especially since they can be verified in your basement.
You have your predictions. Whether they are good, bad, or indifferent is actually beside the point, because what you need is a single contradictory fact. Good luck.