The peer-review system is not broken. Furthermore, there are publications where the editor is anti-AGW.
Happy to leave this. It is a different question, and one where the answers are less clear.1. Is it a good thing?
Absolutely. This is the killer issue.2. What is the magnitude
This is putting cart before horse. We need to know: What (quantitatively) is the magnitude of the overall feedback?. I agree clouds/WV are the major component.3. Is the feedback from WV/clouds overall positive or negative?
4. Is man mainly responsible for the increase in CO2 concentration?
This is too simplistic a question. It is accepted that oceans contain CO2 and therefore warming => more CO2 with lag of a few hundred years. I would have thought there will be estimates of this. The exact time constant, and therefore the effect of this NOW on CO2 levels is probably uncertain, but upper & lower bounds can be put on it. Let's find the papers (or non-peer published but detailed calculations). This is unfortunately an are where it is easy to miss issues and have plausible calculations which are completely wrong.
In fact we can do an approx calculation by looking at graph of CO2 vs temperature historically assunming that CO2 changes are mostly the result of absorption/outgassing from oceans. (There will be other effects too, but this gives us some idea). I am sure the AGW people have looked at this.
The ocean outgassing effect, if significant, is of course a positive feedback (not treated as such because of long time constant).
You make a number of asumptions. E.g. anthropogenic CO2/GHG output is falling. Are you sure? Where are the calculations? I know better than to trust non-quantitative arguments on issues like this.
Not authoritative, but indicates that the long-term equilibrium feedbacks may be complex and diffcult to quantify. I will try find better estimates.
Best wishes, Tom